Alec Baldwin: All criminal charges against actor over fatal shooting on Rust set are dropped

It doesn't take much to pull a trigger and in his mind, Baldwin's mind, he didn't. But then again, we now know that the firing mechanism was changed, which may have contributing factor to the incident.

 

Alec Baldwin indicted on involuntary manslaughter charge again in 'Rust' shooting

Baldwin is back in the hot seat again.

Alec Baldwin indicted on involuntary manslaughter charge again in 'Rust' shooting

Alec Baldwin has again been indicted on a charge of involuntary manslaughter in the 2021 shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film "Rust."

A grand jury submitted an indictment Friday in the First Judicial District Court in Santa Fe, New Mexico, nine months after special prosecutors dismissed an earlier involuntary manslaughter charge against the actor.

The court filing alleges Baldwin "did cause the death of Halyna Hutchins in the commission of negligent use of a firearm, an unlawful act," signed by Special Prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/ente...tary-manslaughter/72285159007/?csp=chromepush

 

The jury is in. Armorer is found ....GUILTY.

Funny how when the chips are on the table...she came to court looking like this;

Instead of this;


It's almost as if they are self aware and know they look insane.

 

And a Prosecutor seriously breaches Brady and out the case goes with prejudice. Who mixed blanks with real bullets? Whoever did, it was still the armorers job to sort wheat from chaff.

 

I am as pro 2A as they come. I am also a very strong advocate for personal responsibility when it comes to firearms.

Most people arent looking at this case objectively.

This is not about a gun owner irresponsibly handling firearms. This is a MOVIE SET...an environment with paid armorers who's job it was to ensure the firearms used in the production are safe. When firearms are brought to the set they are verbally declared safe...a minimum of twice...and actors that use those firearms have every reason to believe they are in a safe condition. It is unrealistic to assume that every actor using every firearm would stop and personally inspect the weapons he or she would be using during rehearsals or filming.

Thats the ARMORERS JOB.

SOme givens.

1-OF COURSE Baldwin pulled the trigger. The firearm cannot fire otherwise.
2-As a producer he is liable...probably civilly not criminally...for hiring an unskilled and un/under-qualified armorer to work the set.

But in this case, unless it can be proved he some how KNEW the weapons were hot and loaded with live rounds, he isnt guilty of a crime.

 

The armorer is guilty. She had ONE job....and she ****ed it up.

 

Sorry...thats just wrong on a movie set. Totally correct in the 'real' world...but the movies arent the real world.

MOST actors are completely unfamiliar with firearms. Thats WHY they hire someone to provide and secure the firearms for the set.

 

Put more simply, why have an armorer if in fact it's the job of the every other bastard including actors to make sure a movie gun is safe to fire.

 

Good point in that he would have some vicarious liability and may still have to face that

 

Coloured hair makes you look “insane”???

 

Nah, he hand passes that to the insurer. It would come down to what her qualifications were as known by Baldwin, and depending on the credentialed quality, what checks he made if any were necessary.

 

If you pay attention to tv shows and movies where actors are ;firing' weapons its obvious that without assistance, most wouldnt know which end the projectile is supposed to come from. They dont 'know' firearms.

 

Yet so many of them sure have strong opinions on gun control

 

You don't need to be a surgeon to be aware of the dangers of surgery, or a bull rider to know you can perish doing that stuff etc etc etc etc etc.

 

In Baldwin's defense he was told by the armorer that the gun was safe. There wasn't supposed to be live ammunition on that set; that there was is on her.

But to your point Baldwin was one of the movies principals not just a hired actor, certainly Ms. Hutchins family should be able to sue him and everyone else responsible for every penny he/they has/have ... IMHO. They hired an inexperienced armorer that allowed and possibly even encouraged unsafe gun practices.

• All guns are to be treated as though they are loaded ALL the time
• Never point a gun at something you don't want to destroy
• Always be sure of your target and what's behind it
• Never put your finger on the trigger until you're on target and ready to fire.

If you follow those rules it's hard for bad **** to happen. Obviously people on the set were not educated properly in fundamental gun safety. That's on the armorer.

One thing I'm seeing more in movies is they don't use real (functioning) guns; if you pay attention you'll see a lot of "rubber duckies" being used. Which is a good thing ... IMHO.

 

Well the prosecutors purposefully withheld evidence that he could have used in his defense. I mean when they are told to inventory that evidence in the name of a different case so nobody can find it, it isn't even arguable that it was an accident or mishandling. He isn't getting off scott free because he is famous. He is getting off scott free because for once someone has finally caught one of these crooked ass prosecutors red-handed.

 

Absolutely. Its the ultimate irony. "Guns are eeeeevil! Oh hey...look how cool I am shooting my pretend guns!!!"

I'd love to see a filmmaker make a realistic movie where the 'good guys' faced off against the armed bad guys unarmed.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one, because I believe that basic firearms safety doesn't stop when it's an actor in a movie set.

I understand that live ammunition has NO reason to even be on location, but that doesn't suspend basic firearms safety, either.

 

I agree that it was a tragic accident. I view the armorer as the guilty party and she got way too hard a sentence for what should have been a tort, not a crime. One thing we can always know is that the justice system isn't consistent. But he did pull the trigger. A single action Colt doesn't fire any other way. I have owned one.

 

No they didn't.

 

Why was the case dismissed?

 

That is what the judges ruled. It was the prosecutor who learned about this after taking the case so she immediately reported it to the judge and quit the case.

 

BECAUSE OF THIS INCIDENT!!!

This story is EXACTLY why.

Damn how can you people think gun safety should just be ignored because you have hired a supposed professional?

How can you ask this question when the very story we're talking about IS the answer to the question.

 

On movie sets you are LITERALLY pointing guns and shooting at people you dont intend to destroy.

I worked security on a few indie movie sets...I have a tiny bit of experience with that. I also did old west shootouts at an amusement park for two years. We didnt use our own firearms and often in different shows we werent shooting just the weapons we loaded.

I think you guys are off base on this. Its not an incident of reckless or careless firearm handling...its an incident of unsafe firearm management by the armorer. I dont like Alec Baldwin...but I dont care about that when it comes to right and wrong.

 

You're wrong.

You never just ignore gun safety, ever.

THIS STORY is why you're wrong.

You're basically arguing that it was ok for baldwin to not check his weapon before firing. This story, this incident is why you are wrong. Gun safety NEVER gets ignored....EVER.