Alec Baldwin- Charges dropped :-@

[Paul B.]

Well, with all the hoopla, MSM misinformation ,and gossip, ad nauseum, there remains two questions unasked and unanswered. Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?


Paul B.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Paul B.

Well, with all the hoopla, MSM misinformation ,and gossip, ad nauseum, there remains two questions unasked and unanswered. Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?

Third, and I think related, question is: How did live rounds find their way onto a movie set where there isn't supposed to be any live ammunition?

I think I know the answer to that question, but it's pure speculation on my part so I won't post it.

[44 AMP]

"Misfire" is common Media Speak for inadvertent discharge, they don't use Gun Culture English.

They also seem to suck at using standard (American) English or any other kind.

there remains two questions unasked and unanswered. Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?

they aren't unasked. TO date, they are unanswered. And, I think the answers (IF we ever get them) will be important.

As I see it, there are only two possibilities about why, 1) someone was grossly negligent or 2) someone did it with malicious intent.

As to the "who", the suspect list would have to be anyone with access to the firearms and ammo. And that includes anyone who had access to the key(s).

And for that, the possibilities are HUGE.

[stagpanther]

As to the "who", the suspect list would have to be anyone with access to the firearms and ammo. And that includes anyone who had access to the key(s).

And for that, the possibilities are HUGE.

I still think the range of possibilities is rather finite--and the answers to those questions will be rather easy to find--maybe already have. One or more people screwed up, and there is no way passing the buck or "arranging the stories so that they fit" is going to work IMO as people will turn deals to avoid prosecution. All roads lead back to the armorer--or whoever was appointed in her stead to supervise the firearms IMO. My guess, it will end up being a division of criminal responsibility between the armorer not catching (and possibly supplying) the live round and the supervisor who had advised the firearm was cold (I think he already copped a plea).

Baldwin will likely face civil liability charges--but then so might the SAG by extension IMO. The majority of people responding on this tread think he is at least responsible for involuntary manslaughter--and I admit that I initially had the same reaction, but that is because many years of shooting have instinctively ingrained into me [us] to never point a weapon--in any condition--at something I [we] don't intend to destroy. And, in interest of honest transparency, I've had a few accidental discharges in my time and it was only because I was pointing the weapon at the ground or the intended target that I potentially avoided having something like this happen to me. This is directly opposed to film-making tradition where-in time, budgetary constraints and limited actor knowledge in many cases creates a world of "exceptions" to make the use of weapons possible by people who are directed to point weapons at people and pull the trigger--often fast and repeatedly.

Maybe we all share some responsibility? I mean, who doesn't love a good old western movie where the some retread of good guy vs bad guy/vengeance plot drives a never-ending stream of films? I was just thinking the other day we're long overdue for yet another Robinhood or King Arthur remake by the Brits.

[Tom Servo]

As to the "who", the suspect list would have to be anyone with access to the firearms and ammo.

It might be shortened by the knowledge that armorer Gutierrez-Reed admitted to taking some of the firearms off site for live-fire practice shortly before the incident.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

It might be shortened by the knowledge that armorer Gutierrez-Reed admitted to taking some of the firearms off site for live-fire practice shortly before the incident.

I don't think we know that.

I remember reading at least one article that reported Ms. Gutierrez-Reed asked the firearms supplier if she could use the guns for plinking when they weren't being used on the set, and that the answer was a definitive "No!" The report said she was told that if she wanted to do any recreational shooting, she would have to use her own guns. The same report said she asked if the supplier would provide some live ammo, and the answer again was "No."

There have been multiple reports that some members of the crew engaged in plinking on or near the set, but I don't think any of those reports have established that the guns used were the prop guns. Clearly someone was shooting live ammo, and someone had to have brought that to the set. It strongly appears that the someone was Ms. Guttierez-Reed ... but I don't think that has been established with certainty. If it has, the supporting facts haven't been publicized.

[44 AMP]

Since the state of NM has decided the incident was an accident, their investigation has been focused along those lines. This is an entirely sensible approach and use of resources.

IF it were an accident.

I think it is possible that Baldwin's lawyers might bring up the possibility that putting (at least one) live round into the gun was a deliberate and intentional act.

I know the idea was brought up and discarded shortly after the shooting happened. What if the "new evidence" the DA has isn't some BS about the gun's trigger, but something else, entirely, something that suggests the possibility that the live rounds were intentionally introduced in order to cause an accident? I would think that is something the DA would want to have checked out backwards, frontwards and sideways, to be as certain as possible they are proceeding on the right path.

WE are extremely hampered trying to judge what happened, because WE simply don't have more than a handful of verifiable facts. One fact, that we should not ignore or "work around" is that what Baldwin did meets the legal standard for manslaughter.

[DaleA]

Couldn't resist the 'He's Back'.

The newspaper (today-10/18/2023) says the New Mexico prosecutors are going to try again to charge Alec Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter. The article says the New Mexico prosecutors will present their case to a grand jury November 16, 2023.

An earlier manslaughter charge [was] dropped after prosecutors received new evidence suggesting that the gun might have been modified in a way that made it easier to inadvertently fire. Prosecutors decided to reopen the case after submitting the gun for further analysis which they said contradicted Baldwin's assertion that he had not pulled the trigger. "The forensic testing of the gun concluded with certainty that the trigger of the gun had to be pulled for the gun to go off," said Karl T. Morrissey, one of the prosecutors.

(Bold emphasis is mine.)

The article identified the gun as "a Pietta replica of an 1873 revolver...that required about 2 pounds of pressure on the trigger to discharge."

The original Alec Baldwin thread, that is closed, can be found here:
https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...hlight=baldwin

My info comes from a New York Times article printed in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.
https://www.twincities.com/2023/10/1...rn-movie-rust/

[Aguila Blanca]

We all knew that Baldwin had to have pulled the trigger. He may not have consciously pulled it, but it's a replica of a Colt Single Action Army -- once cocked, the only way to lower the hammer is to pull the trigger. He had to have pulled the trigger.

And we also know that Baldwin has displayed extremely poor trigger finger discipline in previous films. Baldwin's default is to put his finger inside the trigger guard when he picks up a firearm. That combined with a 2-pound trigger is a recipe for disaster.

[44 AMP]

That combined with a 2-pound trigger is a recipe for disaster.

I think it's also important to include the fact that he pointed the gun at a person, AND, OPERATED the gun that he had not personally inspected the gun to see if it was loaded, (or with what).

He admits to cocking the hammer, but denies pulling the trigger. I think a court should determine if expert testimony or Baldwin's memory is the deciding factor describing what really happened.

My vote is not on his memory...

If I am understanding the linked article correctly, NM now believes there is enough evidence to charge and send the case to a Grand Jury. Period.

No claims (other then "new evidence") or explanation what the new evidence is, or might be, and I'm fine with that. They don't have to tell the press what it is, or how they are making their decision process, only what the decision is.

The rest of the information will come out, if the case goes to trial, and my personal opinion is that it should go to trial.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The rest of the information will come out, if the case goes to trial, and my personal opinion is that it should go to trial.

I agree.

[stagpanther]

Here's a video that might explain some of the new evidence, which, if I understand it correctly, includes new conclusions that the gun was not modified. They still haven't uncovered who has ultimate responsible for the live round getting into the gun--which I personally think will sink any charges brought against Baldwin lacking that determination--unless that aspect is directly tied to him personally. I don't think "whoever pulls the trigger" is going to stick (even though it does for the general public and LE) because of film practice and precedent.

[44 AMP]

I don't think "whoever pulls the trigger" is going to stick (even though it does for the general public and LE) because of film practice and precedent.

I think it should. And, the entire argument about film practices and precedents is a red herring. IT DOES NOT APPLY in this case.

Not only did Baldwin violate basic gun safety rules and practices, he ALSO violated the film industry rules and practices.

And, he violated the industry rules on two levels. First, physically, personally, with a gun in his hands, and second, as the owner/producer of the film, who is responsible for safety (and everything else) on the set.

I might be more willing to accept it being an unintentional accident because "actors point guns at other actors, when its in the script" but that was NOT the case here.

They were on one of the movie sets. They were not filming, they were rehearsing (and from what I've heard not a scripted scene), the woman who was shot and killed was NOT an actor on the set. There was no instruction in the script to point a gun at her and shoot her.

She was a member of the film crew, NOT an actor. Even if you accept that "actors point guns at each other all the time, its in the script" pointing a gun at crew members is NOT in the script, and is a clear violation of safety and industry rules and practices.

If you prefer a simple automobile analogy, Baldwin got into the driver's seat, started the engine and put the car in gear. He claims he never stepped on the gas pedal...but the car ran over someone and killed them. WHILE HE WAS STEERING IT. Even if the car had run away on its own, he was steering it!

As far as I'm concerned he is 100% responsible for the death of the woman and the injury to the fellow behind her.

I am not judging if he is criminally liable, that is the job of the NM justice system. And the only way that job can be done is when the case goes to court.

[stagpanther]

She was a member of the film crew, NOT an actor. Even if you accept that "actors point guns at each other all the time, its in the script" pointing a gun at crew members is NOT in the script, and is a clear violation of safety and industry rules and practices.

You're splitting hairs here--either you DO allow pointing at people--or you DON'T as you say in the beginning. I personally agree with you on this; but as a practical matter I don't think a jury is going to convict him on that point alone.

[44 AMP]

A lot of the discussion of this case is about splitting hairs.

There are a number of facts in this matter that are not contested. There are also a lot of allegations, "explanations" and claims unsupported by any evidence that has been released to the public at this time.

This is why I want to see the case go to trial. I want to see the claims either supported or debunked by sworn testimony and evidence entered into the record.

Arrogance, ignorance, flagrant disregard for established safety protocols, all these and more played a part. Which one(s) were responsible for what percentage of the outcome might be splitting hairs, but a woman was shot and killed by a gun in Baldwin's hands.

I think some hair splitting is not only in order, its the least of the things that should happen.

[HiBC]

IMO, there is a chain of irresponsibility and incompetence , and every link in the chain is pointing at another link to blame.

The shooting was a team effort.

I'll even suggest the cinematographer who died should have said "Hey! DO NOT POINT THAT GUN AT ME!!" I'm not blaming her, but we are all esponsible for our own safety.
Would you tolerate a muzzle eye view? Do you ever say "Watch your muzzle?"

The Management (Producer?) has to LEAD with an intolerance for unsafe practices. That includes electrical cords and ladders,not just guns.

The people who walked off set (alleged) did so due to unsafe practices.

Chain of custody of firearms. Out on a cart.

The moron who allegedly fetched the gun, declared it "cold" ,and handed it to Baldwin.

The moron who (alleged) declared the Armorer unwelcome in set. Or assigned her to be elsewhere during firearms activity. What is the Armorer for? Deniability?

Its alleged the Armorer was suffering effects of being overserved tequila and (alleged) pot. Does that make her a prohibited person like Hunter?

I can go on. I include the moron holding the gun. Who was also Management

But I'll tell you the one thing I do not blame at all. That inanimate copy of a Colt Single Action. It did what it was designed and directed to do.

Yes,they all need a trial. With cameras?

[Paul B.]

At the risk of repeating myself, "Well, with all the hoopla, MSM misinformation and gossip, ad nauseum, there remains two questions unasked and unanswered. Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?" Is the question that needs to be answered.

Now I'm going on memory here so bear with me. IIRC, the lady was giving Baldwin directions on how he was to point the gun and this was what he was doing when the shot occurred. I believe it had to do with a camera angle she wanted to try. Having done some photography on a semi-professional basis I can understand the scenario.

Baldwin should have realized the muzzle of the gun was covering the lady and to be honest, if that revolver was in good working order, he had to pull the trigger. I'm familiar enough with single action revolvers that on can have a problem lowering the hammer and having it slip out from under the thumb and causing a loud unexpected noise. I have a Colt SAA that some idiot buggered up for fast draw that has a trigger so light that if you pointed it to the sky, the hammer would fall. The trigger is still very dangerously light but I fixed it so that it does do that anymore. At least I haven't gotten it to do that anymore. Basically I need to replace the trigger and hammer as there has been a lot of alteration on the notches. I do wish people who don't know how to do stuff would not work on guns.

Paul B.

[stagpanther]

Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?"

That's been the biggest burning question(s) in my mind.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by HiBC

IMO, there is a chain of irresponsibility and incompetence , and every link in the chain is pointing at another link to blame.

The shooting was a team effort.

I agree. To use the Swiss cheese analogy currently in vogue in the aviation industry, in this incident the holes lined up on a LOT of slices of the cheese. The point of having redundant safety protocols is so that a lapse on one protocol still shouldn't result in a mishap. In this case, a great many safety protocols were ignored or intentionally violated.

I'll even suggest the cinematographer who died should have said "Hey! DO NOT POINT THAT GUN AT ME!!" I'm not blaming her, but we are all esponsible for our own safety.

Unfortunately, this is also true. Basically, I suspect this boils down to complacency. After all, how long had it been since anyone was accidentally killed by a firearm on a movie set? Jon-Erik Hexum shot himself while playing Russian roulette in 1984. The Brandon Lee incident (which was the impetus for most of the film industry safety protocols that are supposed to be followed today was in 1993, so it had been 29 years. Halyna was still a child and not even living in the U.S. when the Brandon Lee incident happened. There may have even been a mental disconnect to the effect that the safety rules apply when actually shooting a scene, but not when setting up to shoot the scene.

But the gun doesn't know if it's a rehearsal or an actual take.

Bottom line: Baldwin had been in the industry longer than probably anybody else on the set and on the site. He was both the star and one of the producers. If anyone, HE should have known the protocols and -- as the star and again as a producer -- he should have been at the forefront in ensuring that the safety protocols were followed. Instead, it appears that he was at the forefront of the efforts to ignore and sidestep them.

With tragic consequences.

[44 AMP]

Who loaded the live round(s) in the gun and why?"

Indeed an important question. Another one I'd like to know the answer to is "was there only one live round in the gun???"

There is someone who knows this, but they may not know that they know, simply because they were focused on something else. (safety?? cya??)

According to reports, when the deputies arrived on the scene, they were presented with the UNLOADED gun, and a box with a mixture of live rounds, dummy rounds and blanks. (I suspect also at least one fired case, but that was not mentioned in the report I saw)

In between the shooting and the arrival of the authorities, someone unloaded the gun. This is not in dispute. WHO did it has not been given. That person knows what came out of the gun, though they may not know the difference between live, dummy and blanks on sight, or may know and don't recall.

Having seen waay too many tv shows, one questions the situation with all the different possible plots in the back of one's mind. Was it one live round left in the gun as a result of carelessness? Or a single live round maliciously loaded in order to cause harm?? Could the gun have been fully loaded with live rounds, and Baldwin's attempt to lower the hammer resulted in the gun firing?

Some of these questions should be able to be answered at trial.

I heard that Baldwin was practicing drawing and cocking the pistol, repeatedly at the rehearsal. He does admit to cocking the hammer the time the gun fired, but claims he did not pull the trigger.

A LOT of people are well versed in the operation and quirks of the Colt 1873 and its copies and clones. I'm sure some of them even work for the FBI.

Every possible variation of the facts has been presented by some one in the press or presented to the press, (interviews, "leaks", etc.) some much more plausible than others.

We need these things on the record, to be proven or disproven. Testimony given, examined and cross examined. Then, hopefully, what really happened, and didn't happen will come to light.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

I heard that Baldwin was practicing drawing and cocking the pistol, repeatedly at the rehearsal. He does admit to cocking the hammer the time the gun fired, but claims he did not pull the trigger.

Baldwin also claims that he didn't pull the trigger, but he also stated that he pulled the hammer as far back as it would go, and then let it drop. As we all know, unless the firearm is broken, with a SAA (or clone) when you take your thumb off the hammer at full cock ... nothing happens. If take your thumb off the hammer at some point short of full-cock, the hammer drops to the half-cock position.

There seem to be conflicting reports as to whether or not the revolver involved was defective when it was turned over to the FBI for testing. I have always wondered why that even happened. I can't believe the New Mexico State Police don't have (or have access to) a qualified gunsmith who could have checked out the firearm without sending it to the FBI.

[Sevens]

I know this has LONG been discussed but here we are again.

I think it's a dumb discussion to hash out whether or not Alec Baldwin pointed a gun a people and whether or not Alec Baldwin pulled/squeezed a trigger.

As this moron is an ACTOR and literally in the process of acting out a scene in a movie, he *SHOULD* point this thing at people and he *SHOULD* pull a trigger while doing so.

Actors and movies aren't real life. That's why their equipment should follow, their equipment should not be real life either. Their guns should be set up EXCLUSIVELY for Hollywood and playtime. They should never be using real firearms and surely as all hell should never have real, live ammo within a country mile of a movie set. This was all very well outlined in the aftermath of the tragic Brandon Lee death on the set of The Crow in the mid-1990's.

As Alec Baldwin was wholly in command of this idiot goat rope, Alec Baldwin should surely be charged for killing one and injuring a second.

He should not be charged for being the idiot holding the gun when it happened, he should be charged for being the head idiot in charge of a whole collection of idiotic fools play acting and pointing real guns at each other with real ammunition on the set.

Alec Baldwin should accidentally drink two gallons of real bleach while play acting some idiotic scene where the characters drink bleach.

Alec Baldwin is a substandard moron and his own personal failing led to the death of one and the injury of another and there's really no debate on that... because that is FACT.

The courts will find whatever they find and the net result will be anticlimactic and regardless of that outcome, we'll still have one injured and one dead due to the failings of whoever was in charge of this set, i.e., Alec Baldwin, known moron.

[44 AMP]

As we all know, unless the firearm is broken, with a SAA (or clone) when you take your thumb off the hammer at full cock ... nothing happens. If take your thumb off the hammer at some point short of full-cock, the hammer drops to the half-cock position.

yep, that's what happens,

UNLESS
You are holding the gun in such a way that you are holding the trigger back. And, that is something an undereducated idiot could easily do and not even realize they were doing it.

Of you are gripping the gun so the trigger is held back, when you pull the hammer back and release it, it falls ALL THE WAY and fires the gun if there is a live round under the hammer.

I can see Mr Baldwin, (the actor) easily holding the gun with his finger on the trigger and it being held all the way back and never realizing he was doing so.

IF he did that, his statement that he "didn't pull the trigger" would infact be true, PROVIDED you included the context "AFTER cocking the hammer".
IF he pulled the trigger and held it back BEFORE cocking the hammer, then the gun firing when he released the hammer was the normal (and expected) resulting action.

As this moron is an ACTOR and literally in the process of acting out a scene in a movie, he *SHOULD* point this thing at people and he *SHOULD* pull a trigger while doing so.

Agreed, to a point. He should be pointing and shooting ONLY what the script calls for. Show me the script that says the actor should point his gun at the cinematographer next to the camera, and not at another actor in the scene, and I'd say Baldwin followed the script. I don't think he did.

Simple terms, Baldwin the actor had the gun in his hand when it fired. He may or may not be guilty of something in the law, but he is absolutely responsible for what happened.

Baldwin the producer is responsible for allowing the conditions where Baldwin the actor could shoot someone.

Best practices were not followed. Industry standard practices were not followed. Basic gun safety rules were not followed. Doesn't matter who was at the ship's wheel when it strikes a reef, the captain is responsible. As he is responsible for the safety of all hands and everything that happens aboard, whether he is physically present, or not.

The fact that it was a movie set doesn't alter that principle. Doesn't matter that it wasn't supposed to be real. It was real, and a person really died, so real world laws and rules DO apply here.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

yep, that's what happens,

UNLESS
You are holding the gun in such a way that you are holding the trigger back. And, that is something an undereducated idiot could easily do and not even realize they were doing it.

Of you are gripping the gun so the trigger is held back, when you pull the hammer back and release it, it falls ALL THE WAY and fires the gun if there is a live round under the hammer.

Aren't those two options actually the same thing?

For the record, that's exactly what I think happened. I know from other films Baldwin was in that he has lousy trigger finger discipline. I also know from having owned a SAA clone and having repaired one for a friend that they have a very short trigger stroke. If I had to guess, my guess would be that the trigger was already all the way back when Baldwin pulled the hammer back, so when he let it go the gun did exactly what it was designed to do.

[Ricklin]

Regardless of the courts finding, Baldwin is THE guilty party. He's a Hollywood ship's captain, quickly blame any and everyone else possible. This movie is HIM through and through, he is the primary producer.
The lack of adherence to virtually all industry safety protocols are really what killed Helyna. What if another actor shot Helyna Hutchins?? Really darn little difference, Baldwin is the guy responsible. I'm not sure it really has anything to do with a trigger being pulled or not pulled. That trigger was pulled with the allowance of live ammunition on a movie set. I've seen multiple reports that they enjoyed "plinking" during off hours.