Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in ‘Rust’ movie set shooting

Legal analysis from a practicing lawyer. It's more than 30 min long, and she gives equal weight to both sides. I think the prosecution can make at least one of the two charges stick, and Baldwin's public pronouncements won't help him. At approx 16:50 it's interesting to hear George Clooney throw Baldwin under the bus.

 

Show me one instance of a pro gun individual supporting an accidental shooting. We defend intentional shootings more so than accidental. I can be quoted saying that anyone knows to check a firearm and not do stupid stuff because guns require responsibility. If guns don’t require responsibility then why not give them to grade school kids to handle freely without supervision. The idea that it’s okay to handle a firearm with complete ignorance just because you’re an actor is moronic.

 

I personally believe real guns are cooler in cinema. However, I believe guns should be handled with care and training. As it turns out from the police reports, Alec Baldwin ignored the required safety training and was on the phone with his family during the 30 min training that should have been an hour. He also instructed for Hall not to call the armorer not to be called in prior to handling it for an inspection. He also maintains to this day he never pulled a trigger. The guy acted in complete and utter neglect. He deserves what he gets and I’m sure you agree to some extent.

 

Even with all of that....him being a prominent, die hard lefty blowhard with money I will be pleasantly surprised if he's convicted. I'll be even more surprised if he actually has to serve jail time.

Either way, I hope the soon to follow civil suit will bury him and bring about some more responsibility on movie sets.

 

Where in the hell did I imply or insinuated you little boy? I argued the "pro-gun" crowd and their hypocisy. And you do realize I own a couple of firearms. I hear them all the time say this, but when one of their own does something this stupid, not a single one will say "I am guilty of a crime." Get it now?

I am not ignoring anything. They are on TV saying the two of them are responsible, and with conservative media, they imply that they are too guilty of a crime. The problem is that just because some may be responsible does not mean it is a crime, hence the questions that Bush's Lawyer was asking and most of you failed to answer the questions in one way or another.

I am not making stuff up. It literally happened on the Movie Set of "Rush." This is incontrovertibale. Where did you think this happened? In a home? Out in the middle of nowhere? The police reports said that the articles from liberal to conservative say that, oh hell, all participants say that. But when a movie set is involved, there are literally other factors. One of those factors is the guilds. Actors guild only allow actors to act. Nothibng more, nothing less. There are other people in guilds for the set, lightening, casting, and so forth, including professional experts such as the weapons expert. And I take it you've never been on a movie set or TV set.

 

Unless it is a sci fi show or movie, any western or police drama set actually uses real guns, generally. This movie did that. No "fake gun" whatsoever.


https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/...y.,firing in postproduction whenever possible.

 

Probation and a Fine...

 

The NRA is usually silent when it comes to accidental shootings. That silience is complicity in which they will not criticize the person in one way or the other whether that person is a police officer or another individual who owned the firearm and their kid was killed by the accidental shooting.

 

Actually the armorer request a fake plastic gun to be used during practice but he also ignored that. All in the police report

 

My goodness gracious - it looks like someone's been triggered, lol. Love the name calling, by the way. It's so rewarding to interact with grownups. I'm really looking forward to when that might occur.

And yet you haven't cited a single example of said "hypocisy [sic]" from the scaarrry pro gun crowd anywhere, let alone on this board. Thus spake Alwayssa. She says it so it must be true; no evidence required. Thanks for clearing that up, St. Alwayssa. Amen. And Awoman.

Sure you are, when you posted

The material I posted included analyses from industry experts. A grownup (especially one who claims to "understand the dynamics of what happens on a movie set") might evaluate or challenge or refute what those experts have to say. It's surprising that a grownup would ignore what are arguably the most relevant observations re: the topic at hand, especially while chastising the non-experts don't "understand the dynamics of what happens on a movie set". Surprising to a grownup, anyway.

It appears you've forgotten about your indictment of the prosecutor for

for which you furnish not a particle of evidence, beyond your own opinion. But as we've already established, Alwayssa's opinion is gospel. Amen. And Awoman.

And this little gem:

I'll ask you again: kindly cite where Mary Carmack-Altwies (the prosecutor, whom you've labeled the DA) has ever stated, suggested or implied anything of the kind.

Bueller?

 

I have heard that Prosecutors have made a blue and charged Baldwin under a Law which did not exist at the time of the relevant event.

How incompetent is that....if true?

 

And movie sets want as much authencitity as possible. Again, this is not a scifi film with "blasters," Those are fake. But with westerns, since the 1950s, real guns have been used. And accidents have happened.

 

Baldwin said he never pulled the trigger which begs this question: I imagine the gun is locked up in an evidence locker untouched by human hands since it was put there; so my question is has the gun since fired itself like Baldwin is accusing it of doing?

 

The FBI has done a forensic analysis of the gun, and they've determined Baldwin's story is bullshit.

...For months, actor Alec Baldwin has said that he did not pull the trigger of a gun that fatally shot a crew member while they were filming in New Mexico. But new forensic evidence may tell a different story.

The FBI recently finished and sent a report to the Santa Fe County Sheriff's Office, which is handling the investigation. Officials found that the weapon, meant to be a prop, could not be fired without pulling the trigger...

NPR is the source; this part is laughable: "... the weapon, meant to be a prop..."

If it was meant to be a prop, it would have been a prop. Genuine prop guns are configured to accept only blanks. Live rounds won't fit. It's clear the NPR staff writer knows as little about guns and gun safety as the Baldwin apologists on this board.

Everyone on the set - including Baldwin - knew it was a real gun, because live rounds had been fired from it on that set within days of Mrs. Hutchins being killed by the same weapon. It's what prompted members of the crew to stage a walkout over safety concerns.

 

No, you made a false accusation. You still have not answered that false accusation with your lack of reading comprehension skills. Again, read what I wrote, not what you think what I wrote, child.

Actually I have, but I did give an opinion. Apparently, you cannot differentiate between opinion or facts, or use those brain cells in that cobweb filled cranium.

You did not post any analysis. Political opinion pieces yes, but not true analysis. Let's see, two videos on people who think he should be guilty is an opinion, not an analysis.

Second, you are ignoring that this is a movie set, a lot of moving parts, and the guilds that dictate who does what, when, where, why, and how. In general, the conservative media outlets are the ones who are arguing that he is guilty. They never liked Alec Baldwin. Even Hannity had segments in which he criticized Alec Baldwin from time to time because of Baldwin's political positions. And then you have that overall generalized negative commentary from the right on Hollywood, that is mostly shown on Laura, Tucker, Hannity, and others.

Finally, defense attorneys think this is a stretch in this article, which pretty much disputes your "analysis" that you think is cut and dry, Here is another article about the charges in which the reckless is a stretch at most.

I haven't forgotten. But it was opinion. And again, it appears you cannot differentiate, I know that is a big word for you, between opinion and facts. I never made it a fact. I made it an opinion.

The person I am referring to is Andrea Reeb, who was the one who recommended the charges as the special prosecutor, which the first DA for New Mexico, according to law, has no choice but to charge. So, do the critical thinking here if you can. So far, you have not done that anywhere in this thread or in your replies to me.

Se above. But the fact of the answer is that politics. The question is where did the politics come from. The DA first or the Special Prosecutor first?

 

Why would it matter to authenticity if it's a fake gun in practice?

 

So many liberal tantrums from only one trigger. Refresh my memory: of what have I falsely accused you?

What about the Steve Wolf and Neal Zoromski analyses are even remotely political? Answer: nothing. Fabricating false motives to fit your narrative is an evasion, nothing more. And not a clever one.

None of whom I ever watch, nor have I ever cited - anywhere - on this board. You seem fond of them, though. Libs always deploy their favorite bogeyman when they find themselves on the short end of an argument. You'll need to do better than childishly trying to attach me to the utterances of Hannity & his ilk.

What a pathetic little dodge. You stated, unequivocally, that

Your "opinion" is that she described in in a way she never described it. Your opinion is a lie, but that's okay because your lie is an opinion. Okey dokey, Smokey. For the grownups among us, here's what Andrea Reeb said in print:

"If any one of these three people — Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed or David Halls — had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It’s that simple,” Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor on the case, said in a statement Thursday. “The evidence clearly shows a pattern of criminal disregard for safety on the ‘Rust’ film set.”

Here's what she (and Mary Carmack-Altwies) said in front of the camera (but don't you DARE take their word for it! Alwayssa insists they said nothing like this. Alwayssa's opinion is fact; facts = Alwayssa's opinions. Amen. And Awoman.):

 

Now only going on by the vids I see on Youtube it seems Baldwin is telling the truth. In these old Wild West revolvers if your finger is on the trigger and you pull the hammer fully to the rear it can fire, so when Baldwin says "I didn't pull the trigger" he's right

 

None of that negates the fact the armorer wanted fake guns for practice and he refused.

 

According to who? The FBI analysis concluded there is no way that gun could have been fired absent Baldwin pulling the trigger. You're fond of youtube vids. Here's Steve Wolf; a theatrical firearms expert with more than 30 years under his belt. The relevant portion begins at approximately 1:20. He clearly demonstrates what the FBI confirmed forensically (using a replica Colt Model P identical to the one AB killed Mrs. Hutchins with): Baldwin pulled the trigger.

 

Or as the dude said in the video....Baldwin had his finger already depressing the tripper, then cocked it and let the hammer go....not realising he had his finger already depressing the trigger.

 

Which is a fancy way of saying Baldwin pulled the trigger....accidentally.

Either way he pulled the trigger.

Plus, I'm pretty sure they could verify if this is reasonable. They probably can tell when he would've pulled the hammer back and when the gun discharged. This scenario is only possible if the gun discharge immediately after him pulling the hammer back.

This still doesn't excuse Baldwin's negligence though.

 

The prosecutor in this case is clearly not very well versed in law. Overcharging a defendant is how folks walk.

 

Yes, he never PULLED, he had his finger on it (BIG MISTAKE!) and that was enough for first pressure and the hammer to fly forward when he cocked it. I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

Yes he was negligent, he shouldn't have had his finger on the trigger whilst thumbing the hammer back but he never meant for the gun to fire, he never actively pulled the trigger, he's certainly not guilty of manslaughter.