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

It's not stupid to expect someone to follow basic gun safety when they're handed a gun. You check to see if it's loaded. Now explain to me why that rule can be ignored on a movie set.

And expecting a person to check isn't stupid, it would've saved a life in this case.

I'm not insistent on it being Baldwin's fault. It's his fault he didn't follow proper procedure. I can't help that, it's a fact.

You're bringing nothing but your opinions here. Your opinion is that basic gun safety can be ignored. Sorry, that is what's stupid.

https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/tips

Please let me know where it says number 1 can be ignored whenever shooting a movie.

 

Then you answer, what would he have been checking for?

 

To make sure the gun didn't have ammo that would get someone killed.

 

Good lord. Okay, I'll humor you: he'd be checking for live rounds v. blanks. I learned how when I was 9, specifically distinguishing the blanks my dad loaded in the starter pistol he fired at track meets, from the live rounds in our other weapons. A 9 year old can do it, but Saint Alec can't? Seriously?

Here's what's so baffling about you and your fellow apologists: given how it's so easy that - literally - a child can do it, why are you so aghast by the prospect of responsible adults engaging in the easiest & most rudimentary safety checks? Especially when they know they're going to be pulling the trigger on a deadly weapon? Being a "thespian" isn't an answer.

 

But the camera shot for that scene was supposed to show bullets in the gun. The person who loaded that gun was supposed to make sure that every bullet rattled which is the indicator that it was a dummy round.

What I do not know, and have not read about, is whether or not the scene called for the gun to be fired. I thought I read somewhere (and I could be mistaken) is that when the police did forensics on the gun they discovered a defect that made the gun have what could be called a hair-trigger.

Another thing that is not clear which will be discussed in the trial, is why was a live round there to begin with? This is the main thing that differentiates the Brandon Lee on-set shooting from this case. In Brandon Lee's killing, the gun was loaded with blanks, but a bullet fragment in the gun barrel was pushed by the blank's discharge.

My hunch, based on an interview with the vendor who supplied the weapons and bullets, is that the vendor may have been the reason why a live round got mixed in with the dummy rounds.

 

To me it sounds like you have a beef with Baldwin.

Let's see what develops during the trial.

 

I have a beef with anyone who treats a deadly weapon as negligently as Baldwin did. The reality is that a childishly simple 10 second safety check would have prevented Mrs. Hutchins from being killed. That's a FACT.

It's notable that you've run away from the question: why do you believe that Baldwin (or any "thespian") should be exempt from that level of common sense? Why are you so troubled by the prospect of "thespians" being required to treat deadly weapons as carefully as any other American?

I doubt he'll do any time, as much as I'd like him to. I'm betting on a fine & probation. For the purpose of this conversation, let's suppose the trial induces Hollywood to mandate the kind of safety checks expected of every American gun owner, performed by the "thespians" who will be handling the weapons. Would you oppose that as well?

 

You weren't there. Neither was I.

Let the facts come out in the trial.

 

I've answered every question you've put to me. You can't bring yourself to reciprocate. In the proud tradition of Sir Robin, Lucifer bravely runs away.

 

This IS an opinion board. Considering the millions of rounds of ammunition shot for the movies ever since the start of movies, the amount of on-set deaths or injuries due to guns is quite minimal. That's not to diminish the cinematographer's death, but a verifiable fact. It is incumbent on aall the parties involved to figure out what happened and how to eliminate it in the future. That discussion has already begun.

But the bottom line is you weren't there. Neither was I.

Let the facts come out in the trial.

 

Rule #3

 

Catching some flak, must be over the target, lol. The time has come to dump you into the "ignore" cesspool, along with a number of other disingenuous debaters here. Be well!

 

I view it as both their responsibilities. I've seen hundreds and hundreds of chamber checks and nearly every single time it was in the expected condition, but, I've also seen one where everyone was positive the gun was empty and it had a live round in the chamber, to this day, no one can explain how that round ended up chambered, we all knew that it was empty and as various people handled it they had all checked it.

If he doesn't settle it beforehand, it will be up to the jury.

 

Treat every gun like it's loaded.

 

Treat every gun like it's loaded.

 

Interesting analysis from an industry expert (is it just me, or does he look like John Malkovich?). The relevant segment starts about 4 minutes in. The most damning observation is that Baldwin has been very explicit about his experience working with professional on set armorers - how they carefully open and load the weapon in front of everyone; how they demonstrate what the weapon is being loaded with, through the use of both visual display and audible cues; and how they do all of that in the open in front of witnesses, immediately before handing it to the actor.

None of that occurred on the Rust set. Not because the armorer was incompetent or negligent, but because she Wasn't. Even There. Baldwin accepted the gun from an assistant director, who is neither qualified nor authorized to A) verify the weapon is safe, or B) hand it to anyone. Baldwin knew that and grabbed the gun anyway. It sounds like the prosecution's case may be stronger than I thought.

Apart from all of that: we wouldn't be having this conversation if Baldwin had spent a few seconds conducting a basic safety check on his own. But as has been ludicrously argued by others here, Mr. Baldwin is an elite "thespian" whose precious craft "requires concentration." We musn't compromise that "concentration" by wasting 10 seconds of St. Alec's valuable time on something so insignificant as Mrs. Hutchins' life.

 

Yes they can and no, we won't.

 

You don't accidentally pull a trigger TWICE
My THEORY:
He made advances on this woman and was shot down so he decided to shoot her down.

 

We all know the real guilty party...it's the gun.

 

I must confess I enjoy seeing this jerk cornered. I'll leave the legal debate to others, and just note that every round of firearms training I ever took -- There have been many. -- began with the admonition that every gun is loaded.

 

Indeed. The First Rule of Firearm Safety is "Every Gun Is Loaded". Baldwin was grossly negligent as was the armorer, and a woman is dead.

 

I've been shaking my head at Baldwin's bullshit assertion that he never pointed the gun at Mrs. Hutchins. I had been unaware he's also been insisting he never pulled the trigger.

... An FBI forensic report obtained by ABC News uncovered that despite Baldwin’s denial, the gun could not have gone off without the trigger being pulled...

I had not seen any clips from the Stephanupolis interview til now. Ye gods, what a stupid move. He seems hell bent on providing the prosecution all the rope they'll need. The more I learn about this clusterf*ck, the more optimistic I become about the prosecution's chances.

 

There's a 5 year mandatory minimum with the firearm upgrade which would most certainly apply. He's been a political advocate for this type of gun control, so it's ironic it could now harm him directly. His biggest problem is that he went on the news and talk shows claiming he never pulled the trigger (because he knew the risks). However, it's impossible for that firearm to fire without pulling the trigger. So he most definitely did pull the trigger and he's effectively publicly acknowledged the risk in doing so. His case is pretty weak at this point based on the information we have publicly available.

 

He will be offered a Plea Bargain to avoid jail time...

 

That's been my guess from the jump, but the more we learn about how it happened, I think some jail time is becoming somewhat more likely. I'm reminded of the week or so that Paul McCartney spent locked up in Japan back in the day, after bringing a half pound of weed into the country.