I’m just gonna go ahead and say it.
Failing to tell the defense they had the bullets recovered on set is a freaking stupid move. Like it’s incomprehensible how a prosecutor of any amount of experience- or even an intern at the office in their first week- could make such an abysmally stupid mistake.
To put it another way: someone threw the case, intentionally.
Or, it really was a politically motivated trial and the prosecution was willing to cover up exculpatory evidence in order to manipulate the justice system. Either way, its damning.
I fail to see how the cartridges can possibly be exculpatory.
It doesn’t matter how they got in the gun, or if these were from a case on set. He doesn’t contest that that it went off while he was holding it. Only that it’s not his fault.
Manslaughter is about proving negligence or misconduct. The prosecution case was that Baldwin was at fault as he was negligent handling a gun with live ammunition.
Part of Baldwins defence was that he did not know the gun had a live round in it.
The new evidence was that the live ammo came from the props company, not the armourer, throwing doubt over whether the armourer or Baldwin knew there were live rounds on set or in the gun.
That’s a hugely important part of the defence case, and also makes it much hard to prove involuntary manslaughter - it would be negligent to fire a gun knowing there is a live round in it, but if you did not know there were live rounds then does that meet the same level of negligence?
Personally I thought the case against Baldwin seemed tenuous so I’m not surprised this new evidence ended the trial.
This does raise serious questions about the safety of the armourers conviction. She might still be negligent as its unclear how live ammo from the prop company got on set without her knowing but she has not been able to answer that as the evidence was suppressed and she was convicted on the assumption it was entirely her fault the live ammo was on set.
It raises even more serious questions about the behaviour and motivations of the new mexico prosecution team and investigators.
The problem with this statement is that prop/inert cartridges are labeled and identified as such in ways that are usually fairly obvious.
Like “loading” the cartridge with a steel ball bearing, and a used/fired primer cap (which has a divot from the hammer.) Thorough inspection would have identified them as inert.
While it’s remotely possible they were so well crafted as to be virtually identical, that kind of thing would end the props company. They are very careful to always make the marking conspicuous- as long as you know to look for it. (Another common option is a somewhat large hole in the side of the casing.)
And the indicators should have been gone over in a safety briefing so everyone knows. (And is trained in what to do on seeing a live round. “Hey! Live round! armorer!”)
In any case Baldwin had a duty of care to handle the firearm safely. Part of that includes knowing its state. He did not clear the fire arm, and did not know its state. It becomes self evident they were not inert cartridges but rather live rounds given that we’re talking about Alina being shot.
Man, you really don’t know anything about the case do you
If you’re driving and your brakes mysteriously fail, consequently someone dies. Is it manslaughter?
Edit: clarity.
Not quite, you’re ignoring the role of the armorer on set in your metaphor.
If you just picked up your car from the mechanic after they were expected to check everything, including the brakes, and the brakes then fail causing you to crash and kill someone… Is it manslaughter? And if so, who is at fault?
You were driving the vehicle, but you would obviously expect the brakes to be in working order since they were supposedly checked immediately before you started driving. The driver would almost certainly not be charged in that case, but the mechanic on the other hand would clearly be negligent, directly leading to the death.
I’m not tho. One of the implications of the bullets being a little bit of everywhere was that it implied another source.
Depends on why they failed and if you should have maintained your car better.
It’s usually not all that mysterious. Brakes don’t just randomly fail for no reason.
Let’s say they failed because of poor maintenance. Then yes.
Let’s say they failed because there was a defect in the brake line that caused it to rupture in the high temperatures of summer. Then no.
Baldwin failed a duty of care to ensure the weapon was cleared and in fact safe. He then failed a duty of care when handling that weapon in an extremely unsafe manner.
To go with the analogy, he knew his brakes were failing and drove anyway.
If you know your brakes are failing, and they fail… It’s not mysterious.
Then your analogy sucks. This wasn’t a random failure.
As I said in the reply: Baldwin knew- or should have known- that he was handling the firearm unsafely, and that he shouldn’t handle it in an unsafe manner,
No. But with the withheld evidence now known… The armorer herself may not have been convicted and she’s certainly getting retried.
Those mistakes didn’t happen in a vacuum. But proving where that vacuum came from doesn’t have the same certainty that it did.
This has always been what I believed.
Nah, this sort of shit happens all the time.
Baldwin just has the power and influence to fight the charge.
Not on high profile cases, no it does not.
(Well, excluding Trump trials … Trump truly hires the best.)
I think you overestimate Baldwin’s current star power. These days, he’s a B-lister, at best. Aside from this trial, he hasn’t really been relevant in pop culture for a while now.
He’s still rich, for sure. But I doubt he’s still rich enough to buy a judge, if he ever was to begin with.
You don’t need to bribe a judge.
You need enough money to have a team of lawyers grind through the evidence and find what’s been hidden.
Compare this to having a public defender with limited resources. They basically have to trust the DA’s office.
What’s depressing about this is the DA’s office is so used to getting away with this shady shit, that they can’t do their job properly even when they know they’re under a higher level of scrutiny. Think of all the average Joes that have been fucked over by these guys.
Rich persons justice isn’t really about bribing your way out of things. It’s about having enough resources that you can force the system to behave, for you, in the way that it’s meant to.
This is instead of the usual process that just steamrolls over every poor bastard that ends up in court.
If there’s one thing we’ve discovered over the years, those in charge are surprisingly cheap to bribe.
The Baldwins are extremely well connected. One of them is married to Justin Bieber. Who just got 10mil for performing at that 350mil Indian wedding. Alec is also a movie producer, which you cannot do if you have no money.
What if that judge’s daughter is a huge Justin Bieber fan? Or wants front row tickets to a fashion show or backstage Coachella passes? Or attend a movie premiere? That’s all within his scope
My cynical self agrees with you. But also, Hanlon’s Razor.
She was in charge of keeping things safe, she failed in her responsibilities and someone died. She is at fault and should face the consequences.
I know right. The logic seems to be “well he didn’t get charged for it so I shouldn’t be either”. Yeah, but keeping weapons safe was your job, not his.
The case was dismissed because of misconduct by the police and prosecutors. It has nothing to do with being charged, he was charged. She’s saying the same thing happened in her case, so if his case was dismissed so should her conviction. So yeah, if the same misconduct happened, then it should obviously be overturned too.
And make no mistake about it, if you accidentally caused the death of someone, you would be looking for every opportunity to have the case dismissed too.
You think it was an accident? It was an accident she didn’t do her job? It wasn’t an accident, it was negligence.
Negligence and accidental are not mutually exclusive. Unless youre arguing that she intentionally had this person killed, my point still stands.
What’s the ultimate goal? If it’s purely punitive, then sure.
But if the goal is anything other than that, I don’t see the point. It’s not any rehabilitation she needs would come in prison. It’s not like anyone who look at this and say “well, I can be careless and just bank on the cops fucking up,” so the deterrence is already there. And I can think of hundreds of better ways she can make it up to the victims.
So is that it? Is it really just about “facing the consequences?”
At what point do you think people should be held accountable for their actions? Her negligence CAUSED a death. She only got 18 months in jail and that’s too much?
At what point do you think people should be held accountable for their actions?
My view is very pragmatic: I believe punishments for crimes should be restorative, for rehabilitation, or act as a deterrent. I don’t see how any of these are met by her going to jail for 18 months.
I’ve answered your question, so I’ll try mine again: Is it simply about “being held accountable”?
It is. If there is no punishment for getting someone killed, then why would anyone give a shit at their job that involves safety? Airplane mechanics are held responsible for their failures, should we throw that out the window and when they forget to tighten down a bolt that drops a plane just say whelp, better luck next time, lets get George some more training and hope he follows the procedures that are in place to prevent that from ever happening again.
If there is no consequence, then there is no need for rules and laws.
Airplane mechanics are held responsible for their failures, should we throw that out the window and when they forget to tighten down a bolt that drops a plane just say whelp, better luck next time, lets get George some more training and hope he follows the procedures that are in place to prevent that from ever happening again.
You are joking, but that’s almost exactly what happens. Aircraft investigations are universally conducted on the basis of not assigning blame, but figuring out how to prevent this in the future.
The point is that airplane mechanics generally do not forget to tighten bolts out of pure evil intent. They are for the most part just ordinary humans who can be expected to behave as such. Therefore when an error occurs it is a failure of the system, not them personally. Replacing them with another human who makes human mistakes doesn’t fix anything.
In this case we ask the same thing: what happened that caused things to go so wrong on this set, and what can we change to prevent that from happening again? I’m quite certain that putting this person in jail is not the answer to that question.
In this case we ask the same thing: what happened that caused things to go so wrong on this set, and what can we change to prevent that from happening again?
What happened? She didn’t do her job.
How do you prevent it from happening again? Make sure there are repercussions for not doing your job. Something like maybe jail? That’s a pretty big deterrent.
Edit: I’m not big on sending people to jail. I do believe sex crimes, and violent crimes are 100% jail worthy. Drugs, theft shit like that, no. If you get someone killed because you didn’t follow what you are contracted to do, then yeah, I think you need to go to jail. Not for years, but 18 months, that might be a little long but it’s not unfair. You took a life.
Something you may have missed from one of EatATaco’s earlier comments:
It’s not like anyone who look at this and say “well, I can be careless and just bank on the cops fucking up,” so the deterrence is already there.
First time I downvoted you in this thread because …
If there is no punishment for getting someone killed, then why would anyone give a shit at their job that involves safety?
I explicitly covered this by saying noone is going to think “well, I’ll just be careless and bank on cops or prosecutors screwing up the case” so the deterrence factor is still there. Well, if there is someone that dumb, I doubt any deterrence is going to stop them.
What will it help? She will stay dead and another life is destroyed? It will not prevent it from happening again, more than the death of an innocent person.
Classic example of poor/ lack of regulation in USA. (Mah freedum)
Obviously a prop weapon shouldn’t even be able to shoot real bullets.
This can easily be accomplished by making the prop weapon 1mm smaller, so real bullets can’t even be inserted.
To tell them apart the prop ammo could have a slightly toned line in the length of the bullet, which would be hard to see on film, because it look like a reflection, and could even be pointed away when filming. But would be easy to detect when holding the bullet, because the reflection wouldn’t move right when you hold it. It would work kind of like a watermark on bills.Why the movie industry hasn’t implemented better security themselves IDK, except the obvious, not doing it is slightly cheaper. Except the easier positive identification of a prop, would probably make for a smoother work flow, so even if the equipment is a bit more expensive, it would be recouped by smoother workflow, and zero accidents.
But by far the easiest and cheapest solution is a federal law, because that would standardize it for all.
Obviously a prop weapon shouldn’t even be able to shoot real bullets.
I know a guy who teaches stage combat for live theater and have seen him on more than one occasion talk directors out of using prop firearms that fire blanks (think something akin to a starters pistol). These guns have filled barrels, etc. so there’s no way they could ever fire an actual projectile.
One of the huge problems with these sorts of guns is that they’re very prone to misfiring. For whatever reason the manufacturing quality of both starter guns and the blanks they use just isn’t as good as real firearms. The last thing you want in live theater (which I’ve seen more than once) is for an actor to pull the trigger and hear a click instead of a bang.
Granted they could just re-shoot a movie scene if this happens, but that costs time & money, which they absolutely hate wasting.
Your idea of using smaller caliber bores, etc. likely wouldn’t prevent this sort of thing because either the quality would again suffer due to the lack of demand, or some idiot would still produce real ammo for it, or at least a projectile firing blank.
Movies like Rust use revolvers because that’s what cowboys would have used. They want the guns to look real, which means the cylinder should look like it has real bullets in them and not blanks, especially in close-up shots where you can clearly see a gun. That’s ultimately what killed Brandon Lee on his movie set. The special effects team botched rigging the bullets so they wouldn’t fire. They removed the powder but didn’t remove the primer cap, and at close range that was still enough to cause trauma when Lee was shot.
I also know a guy with 40+ years in the movie special effects industry who actually writes OSHA safety regulations for the industry. They’re “written in blood” due to events like Brandon Lees death, and when followed properly everybody is safe. He wasn’t involved in any way with the Rust production, but he was extremely pissed when he started hearing what’s been reported. He said it sounds like pretty much everybody involved from the producer on down ignored those regulations, and he had no problem with folks like Baldwin facing charges as a result.
Minor nitpick: the primer in the botched dummy cartridge wasn’t enough to fire the bullet, but it was enough to unseat to it from the case and lodge it in the barrel. Later, a normal blank cartridge was fired while the bullet was still stuck in the barrel. The powder in the blank was enough to dislodge the bullet and propel it to lethal velocity.
I work film and am outraged at the dismissal. What a lot of people neglected to grasp is because they were focused on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger is that the trigger wasn’t completely relevant to the crime.
Even if Baldwin wasn’t the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment. When these sort of things happen we should be asking who was in charge of providing a safe environment, were they made aware of the dangers and why didn’t they stop them. If you are fronting the money, have creative control and hiring and firing power and are cced on safety issues your crew brings up as concerns it’s your duty to make sure your crew is safe… And there were so many red flags on Rust you could have seen them from fucking space. People were leaving the show because they didn’t feel safe. Saying a seasoned actor / Producer would have been unaware while not just being on set but directly interfacing with the process is complete ludacris.
We talk about Brandon Lee but we should be talking about Sarah Jones. When she was killed by unsafe choices made by Production three out of four Producers on the project, everyone who could not claim complete perfect ignorance of the choices made, were charged criminally.
This is a sad day for American film labor. Appearantly bosses have no direct liability to keep us safe anymore.
Even if Baldwin wasn’t the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment.
Then you’re advocating for a fundamental change to way America manages workplace safety. If Baldwin hadnt been the one to pull the trigger he would never have been charged in a million years. Criminal charges require some level of intent , including involuntary manslaughter or negligent homocide. Unless you can find communications that show that the producers knew the workplace was unsafe and purposely didn’t take action (not acting sufficiently probably wouldn’t be enough), no charges were even possible.
At most the family of the deceased would have had a strong civil cause of action against the production company, because that’s how workplace safety is handled in 99 percent of cases in the US. That civil liability can then be quantified, analyzed, and insured against. I’m not saying this is a good thing , but criminal charges for company owners have never been how these things have been handled.
Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally discharged a live round under very similar conditions to the lethal event shortly before the fatal accident. Crew members had lodged formal complaints to the Production Manager and many left in protest when these issues were not addressed because it being a non union show there was no other authority to appeal to for better safety standards. The number of armourers they had was not nearly enough for the volume of the show. It not just that they hired crappy ones that violated every common sense rule that exists in the wider body of film. This was a firestorm of factors.
A lot of the issues are that people do not understand film structure, safety culture and just how regimented things are when done properly. The burden of context required is high and the structure of productions as temporary entities makes it really hard to prosecute and honestly if we weren’t dealing with a face people know this would be easier. The fact he was literally holding the smoking gun means you have two separate but related culpabilities.
People have been charged in film for these incidents in the past. The fact the prosecution didn’t adhere to proper process does mean there should be a redo… But to dismiss it with prejudice sends a message to these indy films that playing with fire and ignoring flagrant safety violations that would have you instantly shut down on a union show is okay and that is unacceptable.
You’re 100% right all throughout your comment chain. I’m similarly outraged.
I have an eclectic employment history that includes set safety and theatrical firearm safety. Based on the information available, production was grossly negligent here.
Just like any other industry, if employees are harmed due to negligence, those responsible for that negligence should be held accountable. Given Baldwin (and production in general) was aware of crew concerns, safety gaps, and previous near misses and had the ability to address those issues but failed to do so, they all should absolutely be held accountable.
It is a sad fact that our industry is treated and often treats itself so often as an exception to the conventions of a workplace. A lot of it has to do with novel input and output. At our core though we are an industry and the rules aren’t different. It’s just the context of process is more difficult to grock then in other applications of the laws. Producers on indy productions tend to think of their creative role primarily and often consider that they are an employer with responsibilities and duty of care of their employees only belatedly… And society tends to treat them as though they are functionally airhead babies who can’t be held accountable because “how could they know better”.
It’s their job to know better. They often don’t because a studio tends to have internal means of enforcing safety to protect their investments… But if there’s nobody and no process to stop you making decisions that kill someone then liability is your reward. Indy shows don’t have the safety valve infrastructure and protections union or big studio shows do and that cuts more than one way.
It’s the same thing with fire performance. Since it’s so fucking dangerous, you have to be licensed and insured for it in my city. I personally have an elevated producer license which allows me to supervise, but the flip side is that if something goes wrong, even if I’m not performing, my ass is on the line. I’ve heard of producers being questioned for being at a show as an audience member when something went wrong.
I personally believe that anyone directly involved with production should be charged. It doesn’t matter who pulled the trigger.
Right!? Your average person does not understand the basics of how performance arts in general interface with the law. The perceptions of Producers is really messed up.
In film it is exacerbated a little because some people are primed to look at actors producing as an honorary role and not a practical one. Sometimes the bar does get lowered a bit to accomodate a big name by delegating a lot of the less fun bits but they are still effectively an employer and they can swing their weight around .
There’s also a bit of a perception of above the line crew members by the rest of us where Producers and Directors are basically allowed to break a lot of the rules. Due diligence means we inform them of the risk but they are free to ignore it if they really want to do something that damages equipment or wastes time they are the ones paying for it so if they want to be dumb that’s their privilege.
When it comes to human safety though there are a few people authorized to veto things. Crew and cast are allowed to refuse unsafe work (which is risky because we don’t need to be fired, we can just not be hired on for the next job), the 1stAD who acts as the executive representative of the production liability on the set can say veto directors and producers and the Production Manager is the authority who operates on behalf of the Producers to protect their dumb butts from liability. But Producers ultimately have final say and often no consequences.
It’s really interesting to me that fire dancing gets the same perception even without all the mess in the middle.
Baldwin … should have been charged as part of the Producers
That part of the case against him was dismissed before the trial started iirc.
Yeah… And I am saying that is bullshit.
I bet Baldwin could still be found liable in Civil court for the reasons you’ve mentioned…
on more than one occasion talk directors out of using prop firearms that fire blanks
That sounds like extremely bad advice.
when followed properly everybody is safe.
Really, these guidelines would have prevented the use of real bullets allegedly mixed in by the prop supplier?
Making prop weapons do not have to be of inferior quality, and your argument that some may make live ammo for them would be extremely illogical if that was illegal.
If you want to use live ammo, what would be the argument for not using a real weapon?
If it’s some homemade shit, it would probably be pretty easy to spot anyway.I stand by my original claim, which would 100% have prevented the incident. Even without training. You cannot reasonably argue that it’s safer that an actor should read and learn what 40 years of experience and numerous accidents have taught an expert, that he has written a book about. People make mistakes.
on more than one occasion talk directors out of using prop firearms that fire blanks
That sounds like extremely bad advice.
I’m curious, why do you consider substituting a non-operational (filled barrel) firearm for an operational firearm extremely bad advice?
Obviously because an operational firearm is way more dangerous.
Ohhh, I was interpreting the meaning in reverse! I was flabbergasted on why anyone would think an operational firearm is safer than an inoperative prop.
Making prop weapons do not have to be of inferior quality
They do if no one is willing to make them better. You can’t force a manufacturer to do that, especially when you’re talking about a very small number of sales.
I suppose you are aware that those sales would probably go global. Which they are not currently, because there is a lack of proper regulation and standardization.
They probably don’t have to be as good as real weapons, but obviously with regulation, they’d have to be good enough to be safe to use.Exactly how big do you think the global market for such props is?
Considering media industry is one of the biggest industries in the world, I’d think the market is more than sufficient to sustain multiple vendors.
Prop firearms are not really consumable items. They are just rented over and over again by production companies from rental companies. And when they break, the rental companies would first repair them before buying new ones. They could be decades old and have been repaired over and over.
I assume the shitty reliability of prop guns has more to do with their age and how much they are used rather than low manufacturing quality.
“The media industry” is everything from a big-budget science fiction film, which uses no conventional-looking weapons at all, to a local newscast, which also doesn’t.
The number of productions worldwide needing realistic-looking prop weapons is very unlikely going to make any manufacturer justify redesigning their arms or recalibrating their manufacturing equipment, if recalibration is all that is necessary and new equipment wouldn’t also be required.
Really, these guidelines would have prevented the use of real bullets allegedly mixed in by the prop supplier?
Yes, really. Among other things the guidelines prohibit any real live ammunition on the set. There should be an armorer on-set whose sole responsibility is checking guns in/out and ensuring they are unloaded, or properly loaded with blanks only when absolutely necessary. Only people who have been trained in the safety guidelines should ever handle them. Each person who handles a gun, right down to the actors, should also inspect it, and treat it as loaded even when it isn’t.
You cannot reasonably argue that it’s safer that an actor should read and learn what 40 years of experience and numerous accidents have taught an expert
I never said they did. It’s the responsibility of the producer(s) to ensure all regulations are followed. So they should have made sure the armorer did. It’s the job of the armorer to know the OSHA and other regulations involving firearms on-set, and adhering to them. The armorer should be instructing both the relevant cast & crew on established safety procedures. That should include how to safely check if a gun appears to be loaded, and if not 10000% sure, to check back with the armorer. Not with a random crew person but the person directly responsible for their safe use.
Only people who have been trained in the safety guidelines should ever handle them.
So an actor using a prop gun is required to know and follow safety measures for real guns?
Because that’s really the consequence of what you write, because a prop gun could accidentally be real too.That is not security, that’s idiocy.
I’ve gotta ask: how long have you worked in safety?
20+ years as a technical director at a theater where among many other things I’ve had to deal with the safety aspects of:
- Prop firearms
- prop knives & swords
- stage combat
- fire & smoke effects
- objects like hammers, bricks, rocks, etc. thrown or swung at actors
- Bricks and other objects falling onto actors from heights up to 15 feet
- Sparks & other electrical effects
- collapsing sets, sometimes with actors on/under them
- falls through trap doors
- glass bottles, ceramic vases, etc. broken over actors heads
Through a number of these I’ve also consulted with film & theater safety experts, fire departments, building/electrical inspectors, etc.
That makes a ton of sense. I used to support set safety, including theatrical firearms, and reading your comment was like deja vu. You know your stuff. That’s awesome!
I’m all for additional security measures but they flat out admitted to not checking individual ammunition (blanks, live, and dummie rounds), which already have visual and auditory differentiators. People didn’t take their jobs seriously and a woman is dead because of it, the change needed, regardless of anything else, is ensuring people take the fucking job seriously or everything gets halted on the spot before an accident happens.
I still don’t understand why they had live ammunition onset at all. Apparently it was there so they could shoot some Coke cans with the gums afterwards? If that’s the real reason she brought them she deserves to go down because that’s bloody stupid.
which already have visual and auditory differentiators.
OK that’s something. I think if this identification is general, I’d personally check every single round if I was an actor. Both for guns I hold, and guns that are potentially pointed at me.
If that’s a problem for the producer, they should get proper prop guns.
Removed by mod
8mm parabellum, 6.62x51, 6.62x39, 4.46x45, 11.7x108…
Are prop guns in other countries as you describe?
Well I don’t know the actual regulation, but I have never heard of a weapons accident during filming here in Denmark.
We have stricter regulation on weapons and 100% no movie maker would even dream of using weapons capable of using live ammo.Although Denmark is a small country, we make way more movies than our size would indicate. But still just a fraction of USA.
I saw some comments on this when it happened and americans were shitting their asses when people suggested just using props, because apparently it takes away the immersion when their favourite shooty weapon doesn’t look real enough
Was that immersion for the movie, or for the actors?
Maybe they should try acting like it’s real. Y’know, because they’re actors.
Is the movie still coming out?
lmao
I don’t think they finished filming.
That’s not exactly surprising - I’m pretty sure a first-year law student would do as much. The real question is will it actually get dismissed. Normally I would suspect not, but we live in the weirdest fucking timeline, so who the hell knows.
Sorry kid. Someone’s gotta swing and they weren’t ever going to let it be the rich guy.
Fuck yeah, Hollywood getting away with killing an employee.
Remember, she filed a safety complaint against the production precisely because of all this. Alina was a union whistleblower who turned up dead.
I rarely comment, but your statement is factually incorrect on a few points. I assume when you stated “Alina”, you are referring to Halyna Hutchins. There were safety complaints filed by other production members, but not by her. The way you framed this statement also implies she may have been killed as retribution because she filed a safety complaint, which again, she did not.
If there is a credible source that the victim in this tragedy filed a safety complaint before her death, I will happily amend or delete my comment. I’m not trying to start a flame war or anything and this is certainly no attack on you personally, it just bothers me when I see misinformation.
I rarely comment, but your statement is factually incorrect on a few points. I assume when you stated “Alina”, you are referring to Halyna Hutchins
I apologize for a friggin typo. That’s not a factually incorrect statement, however.
There were safety complaints filed by other production members, but not by her. The way you framed this statement also implies she may have been killed as retribution because she filed a safety complaint, which again, she did not.
From Wikipedia:
There were safety complaints filed by other production members, but not by her. The way you framed this statement also implies she may have been killed as retribution because she filed a safety complaint, which again, she did not.
This makes her a whistleblower and provides (possible) motivation. Do you have any idea how much it costs for a single day of shooting? Proper safety protocols would have slowed down production, increasing costs.
I’ve been unable to find information on who actually filed those complaints, and assume the union wouldn’t tell management who did- and I would be shocked if they did (that’d make them rats.)
Something to think about when Baldwin puts on his most sincere act ever and insists it was an accident and not his fault.
Also as a side note, there’s apparently a small technical mistake that HGR was in fact not the armorer (her contract for that apparently expired a few days earlier.)(she was still acting as armorer even if she wasn’t technically designated as such,)
Should proofread your posts
what, and deprive you of the opportunity to add nothing of substance?
Seems like a little more than just Alec Baldwin heading an extraordinarily sloppy production. HG-R still did not do her job but if they both went to prison you’d feel like justice was done knowing evidence like this was withheld?
I don’t particularly think any kind of ballistics on the bullets is really going to change the out come of the trial. They could have easily omitted them and still had a rock-solid case.
Like, Baldwin is not disputing that he was holding the gun that killed her. Just that it was his fault.
HGR, that other producer. Baldwin. They can all share full guilt for what happened.
The armourer hands the actor a safe gun, the actor uses it.
If the gun isn’t safe it’s not the actor’s fault.
The issue isn’t that Baldwin held the gun, it’s that he was the producer of the entire production.
True. But that’s not how he was being charged. He was being charged because he was the actor firing the weapon. There is a difference.
If he was not a producer would we be talking about him being charged at all in this case?
If the issue is him being a producer, why aren’t all the other producers being charged for the same crime? What was different about Baldwin? If the issue isn’t that he fired the weapon.
The unfortunate answer is the prosecutors office is a very political position.
And ultimately none of that mattered, because the issue that got the case dismissed was gross misconduct by the prosecutor.
Which is almost justice.
Real justice would be the prosecutor facing charges for misconduct.
First, no. That’s wrong.
Hollywood movie industry doesn’t write law. New Mexico law says Baldwin was being negligent, and that negligence resulted in some one’s death. This is a crime.
If a lawyer tells you it’s okay to go 80 in a 55, and a cop writes you a speeding ticket, you don’t get to pull “advice of counsel” as a defense to get out of it, because the lawyers advice is obviously unreasonable and incorrect.
Alternatively, if you call a mechanic and describe some brake symptoms and he says it’s safe to get it into the shop without a tow, and you get into an accident because the brakes failed… the mechanic is not liable for that, ultimate liability rests with the driver. The mechanic didn’t know the full circumstances.
Similarly, even an idiot could be reasonably expected to recognize that it’s unsafe to point a functional firearm at people and pull the trigger (or otherwise waive it around like a toy.) therefore, an expert’s advice to the contrary is quite unreasonable and on its own face should have been ignored; and HGR was unaware of his actions with the weapon as she was not immediately present.
Therefore, Baldwin failed a duty of care to behave in a safe manner (aka he was negligent,) and some one died (homicide- probably invol. Manslaughter or whatever the specific term is.) It also goes out the window when you recognize that HGR was in fact not an expert. She was a laughably inexperienced neppo-baby and we all know it. (She was also hired because she was inexperienced and allowed things that she should not have. This benefitted the production by reducing slow downs in filming.
Now to the second point:
Baldwin did not receive the weapon from HGR- he received from an assistant producer (who plead guilty, too.)
So no. He didn’t receive it from your “expert”.
Doesn’t someone have to be convicted of a crime to have the law saying you’re negligent?
Nope.
The law describes behaviors/actions/stuffs that are or are not crime. Murder is defined as the unjustified killing of a human. (Usually.) there are then variations of “murder”.
Specifically to New Mexico, Involuntary manslaughter :
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.So any behavior that fits that is, by definition invol. Manslaughter.
I’ve added emphasis to the relevant bit here. Let’s break it down.
- Baldwin was preparing to shoot a sequence of a western movie. This is a lawful act.
- he was handling a firearm. This might produce death.
- he was handling the weapon in an unsafe manner; that is, without due caution.
- these things resulted in Alina dying.
This also gets into presumption of innocence. It’s a procedural presumption. It’s a very important procedural stipulation meant to protect the civil liberties of the accused. (It’s violated on a regular basis but that’s a different matter.)
Regardless, the crime happened. If you’re guilty of a thing, you are guilty regardless of if you are caught, or discovered, or accused or even indicted or they blame some one else. None of that changed that you did that thing and are guilty. The trial doesn’t magically guilty- you are found to be guilty.
Like how fossils are found. They’re always there. Just because we don’t know that they’re there, doesn’t mean they don’t exist. The fact of their existence is immaterial to any one’s knowledge of that fact.
Similarly, the fact of one’s guilt is immaterial to anyone’s knowledge of that fact. (For example, a drunk driver so heavily inebriated they don’t realize they ran some one over. Or hunters plinking in the woods unaware that kids were playing behind their targets.)
The court procedural rules say he is presumed to be guilty until the fact of his guilt is found in a court of law.
He committed actions which are defined as being involuntary manslaughter.
He doesn’t get to say he was behaving with due care because there was an inexperienced, inept armorer, somewhere around there. That’s not how it works.
From an occupational accident perspective, it doesn’t matter that there was a “safety coordinator”, it’s still unreasonable behavior that lead to Alina dying, as an employee (and employer, but that’s a different set of charged ) he has an obligation and duty of care to maintain a safe working environment- and to report unsafe environments.
But he’s not charged with a crime and will never be in relation to this tragic accident.
deleted by creator
This case is weird. You have Trumptards wanting Baldwin imprisoned because he mocked Trump once on tv. Then you have bleeding heart leftists who simp for Hannah because muh mysoggyknee, muh classism, muh wimmin never dun nufin wrong. It’s a perfect storm of shitty people coming together for a wrong cause.
