Alec Baldwin update
- Thread starter Aguila Blanca
- Start date
- Status
Although likely true I can see a way that nobody knew the live round was in the gun . It's been said that the armorer had taken actors out shooting to familiarize them with the gun/s just days before and maybe even that same day .
I can't tell you how many times I've been at the range with experienced and noobs alike and they all like to pull rounds from boxes to look at them . " what kind is this , oh look at that hollow point , man that's a big bullet etc etc . I watched them several times over the years proceed to place the round back in the wrong box .
I know they were supposed to be marked and it's the armorers job to be sure the right ammo is in the right boxes . However If the armorer is engaged directly with an actor showing them the guns operation and making sure they are being safe . They would not see behind them or off to the side all the other people pulling ammo from boxes and putting it back . I can see ammo getting mixed up and nobody truly knowing they did anything wrong .
I know I FREEK OUT when I see someone pull one of my load development rounds from the box and it's happened WAY more times then I would have ever thought . I now mark the base and primer with different color sharpies for that reason and others .
I also feel it's less the actors fault and more the armorers fault . Yes we all can harp on Balwin but there are many actors that don't know a thing about firearms let alone the 4 rules . They are completely dependent on the armorer and safety protocols in place to keep everyone safe . It would be like asking an actor that is supposed to drive a car from here to there and stop just short of crashing into the building . They need to go through a ten point inspection on the care checking tires , brake fluid , if the parking brake works etc . No nobody asks the actors to do that . They have mechanics and engineers on set to be sure the car is in proper working condition before the actor gets in .
On a side note I read that the armorer did load the gun but was not allowed on the set ( inside the church) do to Covid protocols stating something about only so many people could be in a space that small and she would have been one to many . So she loaded the gun and gave it to the assistant director to take in . Big Fail !!!!
Many movies have multiple producers in multiple categories, such as producer, executive producer, associate producer, etc. Some may be passive investors, and presumably each active producer has a defined role. If Baldwin was the only producer, or his role included safety on the set, then he probably has some liability exposure. If not there may be blame to share.
It has also been said that the guns were allowed to be used by cast & crew members for recreational plinking in the surrounding desert when not needed for use on the set.
It has also been stated that the Armorer was sent to a different location, to do a differnt job, and that the guns were not loaded or placed on the set by her.
Point here is that LOTS of things are being said, some contradictory, and at this point we DO NOT KNOW which ones are the truth and which ones are false. Some of them must be false, but which ones???
I would freak out at the thought of some stranger fondling ANY of my ammunition!!!
Maybe I'm just a too grumpy old man, and not friendly enough at the range, but as far as I'm concerned, if you're not a TRUSTED friend, you keep your paws off my stuff. ALL of my stuff!! If you ask, and I give you permission, OK, otherwise, I think it goes beyond rude. It could even be dangerous.
And right now, it seems likely that "other people", handing the ammo and the guns without "permission" (in violation of movie industry rules) is what created the conditions allowing the accident on the Rust movie set, to happen.
Alec Baldwin and armorer charge with involuntary manslaughter
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/...s-alec-baldwin.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
"The film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for the guns on set, was also charged with involuntary manslaughter. The film’s first assistant director, Dave Halls, who handed Mr. Baldwin the gun that went off, agreed to plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon."
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/...s-alec-baldwin.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes
"The film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for the guns on set, was also charged with involuntary manslaughter. The film’s first assistant director, Dave Halls, who handed Mr. Baldwin the gun that went off, agreed to plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon."
Bump
Update 1/19/23
Baldwin and the armorer are going to be charged with manslaughter.
From what I know of the matter, I think that's proper for Baldwin, but I'm not sure about the armorer. The AZ DA clearly thinks there is enough evidence for charges to be brought, so we'll see how this goes.
Update 1/19/23
Baldwin and the armorer are going to be charged with manslaughter.
From what I know of the matter, I think that's proper for Baldwin, but I'm not sure about the armorer. The AZ DA clearly thinks there is enough evidence for charges to be brought, so we'll see how this goes.
stagpanther
New member
involuntary manslaughter
Jim Watson
New member
Looks ripe for a deal down to negligent homicide.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And after all this time, we still don't know exactly what happened.
I have understood, from numerous articles, that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was nowhere near the set at the time of the incident and the guns were lying on a cart, unattended. But ... according to an article about these new charges, it was she who loaded the gun, and she allegedly spun the cylinder to show David Halls (the assistant director) that the gun was loaded with dummies.
As a guy I used to work for liked to say, "Everything you read in the news is true ... unless you have first-hand knowledge of the facts."
I have understood, from numerous articles, that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was nowhere near the set at the time of the incident and the guns were lying on a cart, unattended. But ... according to an article about these new charges, it was she who loaded the gun, and she allegedly spun the cylinder to show David Halls (the assistant director) that the gun was loaded with dummies.
As a guy I used to work for liked to say, "Everything you read in the news is true ... unless you have first-hand knowledge of the facts."
His lies will not work for him, this time!!!
Be Safe
I agree as there were a "chain" of events that led up to this tragedy. In fact, we may never know. Personally, I don't care for "man's" attitude. However, he was the last person to have this firearm, in hand and is accountable as we would be. His lies that will probably finally do him in. ....
Sadly, you may be right as money talks and BS walks !!!
Be Safe
reynolds357
New member
Baldwins liability is more in the fact that as director, he was ultimately responsible for firearms safety.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Duplicate threads merged.
There's a better article in the LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...nnah-gutierrez-halls-involuntary-manslaughter
There's a better article in the LA Times: https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...nnah-gutierrez-halls-involuntary-manslaughter
I’ve said this a few times now and I’ll go ahead and say it again because in my mind it’s worth it lol . Actors are not professional armorers, mechanics , stuntmen , or electrical engineers etc. Yes, I know the rules for gun safety but that’s only because I’m a firearms enthusiast . The 4 rules are not law and are not something everyone knows .
Actors on the set are no more liable for the gun being loaded based on how the industry works as they are liable for the car they are driving on set having brake fluid in the master cylinder . There are professionals on the set that their sole purpose for being there is to make sure the props the actors are using are safe and adequate to use for their purpose of the sene
Think of it this way . If your cars manufacturer does some work on the suspension , brakes and wheels then calls you later, and says the cars ready for pick up . You then go to the dealership , pick up your newly repaired car and drive off the lot . At the first light you come to you go to break, and both front wheels fall off, causing you to slide into the intersection killing a pedestrian and hitting a car crossing the opposite direction . It seems to me that many in this thread believe it’s you the car owners fault for not checking the Lug nuts on the wheels before leaving the dealership, and the dealership has no responsibility or liability whatsoever ?
If I have virtually zero understanding of the mechanical workings of a vehicle . How could I possibly be responsible for checking the mechanics work? The same theory holds true if you were a mechanic picking up your car from the dealership you’re still not responsible for checking the dealerships mechanics work before you leave . You are not going to be charged with manslaughter for running over to pedestrian in the street . Now let’s not hear all about how Baldwin knows all about Firarms blah blah blah . This may be about Baldwin but it’s really more about the industry and how it’s run . Think of all this happening to some no name random actor who has little to no experience with firearms .
Here’s another scenario , let’s say anytime somebody new touches a firearm on set the firearm needs to be checked for the proper ammunition if it’s loaded etc. . OK, the armorer loads the firearm with blanks and hands it to the actor says it’s safe you can go do your scene . The actor doing his due diligence, opens the guns cylinder and proceeds to check the ammunition to be sure that it’s the correct ammunition and if it’s loaded correctly . OK now what , are we saying that the actor with little to no experience now is the soul person responsible for that firearm onset moving forward ? Did that firearm not just change hands and be manipulated in a way that now maybe it doesn’t have the right ammo in it or maybe it is loaded incorrectly . Who know if this random actor even knows what they are doing . Wouldn’t the armorer now need to recheck the firearm to be sure it is actually safe since the actor messed with it ? Oh, but wait, the armorer just opened it up and checked it again so now the actor doesn’t know if it’s truly safe and he/she now has to check it again and we go round and round and round . Not every actor in Hollywood knows how firearms work and rely on the armorer to hand them a safe firearm just like they depend on the prop master or whom ever gives them the keys to a car to drive . To give them a safe and properly working vehicle.
Yes this whole situation is tragic and I wished it had never happened . I just feel based on how the industry is run, and the rules they are governed by . This is not just a simple as the last one holding the gun is at fault .
On a sidenote , i’m very curious as to what the armorer showed the Assistant Director as it relates to what the gun was loaded with? How did she show and or how did she prove the cartridges were blanks . Were they marked as blanks with special color on the case head or around the primer etc. indicating they are blanks ? Did she pull them out? Meaning actually pulled the cartridges from the cylinder showing they did not have bullets in them ? I’m asking this question because I’m wondering did the armor have every reason to believe that the ammunition in the firearm were in fact blanks? Maybe the blanks were loaded inproperly I don’t know. I hope they televise this trial, but as many have already pointed out there is likely going to be plea deals in this, and this we’ll never see the inside of a court room .
Actors on the set are no more liable for the gun being loaded based on how the industry works as they are liable for the car they are driving on set having brake fluid in the master cylinder . There are professionals on the set that their sole purpose for being there is to make sure the props the actors are using are safe and adequate to use for their purpose of the sene
Think of it this way . If your cars manufacturer does some work on the suspension , brakes and wheels then calls you later, and says the cars ready for pick up . You then go to the dealership , pick up your newly repaired car and drive off the lot . At the first light you come to you go to break, and both front wheels fall off, causing you to slide into the intersection killing a pedestrian and hitting a car crossing the opposite direction . It seems to me that many in this thread believe it’s you the car owners fault for not checking the Lug nuts on the wheels before leaving the dealership, and the dealership has no responsibility or liability whatsoever ?
If I have virtually zero understanding of the mechanical workings of a vehicle . How could I possibly be responsible for checking the mechanics work? The same theory holds true if you were a mechanic picking up your car from the dealership you’re still not responsible for checking the dealerships mechanics work before you leave . You are not going to be charged with manslaughter for running over to pedestrian in the street . Now let’s not hear all about how Baldwin knows all about Firarms blah blah blah . This may be about Baldwin but it’s really more about the industry and how it’s run . Think of all this happening to some no name random actor who has little to no experience with firearms .
Here’s another scenario , let’s say anytime somebody new touches a firearm on set the firearm needs to be checked for the proper ammunition if it’s loaded etc. . OK, the armorer loads the firearm with blanks and hands it to the actor says it’s safe you can go do your scene . The actor doing his due diligence, opens the guns cylinder and proceeds to check the ammunition to be sure that it’s the correct ammunition and if it’s loaded correctly . OK now what , are we saying that the actor with little to no experience now is the soul person responsible for that firearm onset moving forward ? Did that firearm not just change hands and be manipulated in a way that now maybe it doesn’t have the right ammo in it or maybe it is loaded incorrectly . Who know if this random actor even knows what they are doing . Wouldn’t the armorer now need to recheck the firearm to be sure it is actually safe since the actor messed with it ? Oh, but wait, the armorer just opened it up and checked it again so now the actor doesn’t know if it’s truly safe and he/she now has to check it again and we go round and round and round . Not every actor in Hollywood knows how firearms work and rely on the armorer to hand them a safe firearm just like they depend on the prop master or whom ever gives them the keys to a car to drive . To give them a safe and properly working vehicle.
Yes this whole situation is tragic and I wished it had never happened . I just feel based on how the industry is run, and the rules they are governed by . This is not just a simple as the last one holding the gun is at fault .
On a sidenote , i’m very curious as to what the armorer showed the Assistant Director as it relates to what the gun was loaded with? How did she show and or how did she prove the cartridges were blanks . Were they marked as blanks with special color on the case head or around the primer etc. indicating they are blanks ? Did she pull them out? Meaning actually pulled the cartridges from the cylinder showing they did not have bullets in them ? I’m asking this question because I’m wondering did the armor have every reason to believe that the ammunition in the firearm were in fact blanks? Maybe the blanks were loaded inproperly I don’t know. I hope they televise this trial, but as many have already pointed out there is likely going to be plea deals in this, and this we’ll never see the inside of a court room .
Last edited:
stagpanther
New member
I tend to agree with this.
MG, go back and re-read the entire thread, you'll see that we have hashed out these arguments before, and that there IS conflicting information about who was where, when and did what. We also had a discussion about how actual gun safety and movie set gun safety are not identical.
The Rust movie shooting appears to have violated BOTH....
We probably won't ever know the entire truth, and we won't know the "official" truth either, unless/until facts are testified to in court, under oath. That, whether what really happened or not, will be the official truth if accepted as evidence by the court.
There are reports that the armorer wasn't even on the set where the shooting happened. Baldwin claims he never pulled the trigger. There are numerous other inconsistencies in the information that has been released and reported by the press.
Your car analogy is not a good comparison, in several ways. One being while you may not be required to know automobile mechanics, you are required to know how to drive, safely and you are licensed to do so. Another point is if your wheels fall off when you step on the brakes, the car is BROKEN. NOT in proper working order. There are other points, but all together, its not a good comparison.
As to "blanks", I don't know what method the movie industry uses to ID them as blanks, other than there is no regular bullet. Movie dummy rounds, as reported earlier in this discussion, are made with a BB inside, so it can be heard when shaken. The rattle shows there's no powder.
Also, as reported earlier in this discussion, the movie industry approved process for loading a gun on the set is, the designated armorer loads it, in front of the actor who is going to use it, so they see what goes into the gun. Then the actor is handed the gun to use on the set. NO ONE else is supposed to have anything to do with it.
This was not done on the Rust movie set the day of the accident. Baldwin is responsible for that, in his role as producer of the film.
Captain of the ship rule. It DOES apply here.
Also Baldwin was the guy holding and aiming the pistol when it fired. I won't attempt to decide at what legal level, but I do believe he was responsible.
Charges have (finally) been brought. Preliminary hearings are being scheduled. IF the judge at the prelimary hearings believes there is sufficient evidence to go to trial, the cases will go to trial. If not, they won't. Since the DA spent over a year gathering and reviewing evidence, and has filed charges, he believes there is.
Personally, I would hate to see a plea deal, but I rather expect one. According to one of the news reports, the guy who actually handed Baldwin the loaded gun, and told him it was a "cold gun" (meaning not loaded with live ammo) has already accepted a plea deal.
One of the points I would personally love to find out but we will never know, is if the gun was loaded with more than one live round. When the Sheriff deputies got to the scene, the gun had already been unloaded, so unless the individual who did that testifies what rounds they removed from the gun, (if they even know) we'll never know. When the gun was turned over the authorities, it was empty, and they were given a box with ammo in it, reported to have been a mixture of live rounds, blanks, and dummy rounds.
The Rust movie shooting appears to have violated BOTH....
We probably won't ever know the entire truth, and we won't know the "official" truth either, unless/until facts are testified to in court, under oath. That, whether what really happened or not, will be the official truth if accepted as evidence by the court.
There are reports that the armorer wasn't even on the set where the shooting happened. Baldwin claims he never pulled the trigger. There are numerous other inconsistencies in the information that has been released and reported by the press.
Your car analogy is not a good comparison, in several ways. One being while you may not be required to know automobile mechanics, you are required to know how to drive, safely and you are licensed to do so. Another point is if your wheels fall off when you step on the brakes, the car is BROKEN. NOT in proper working order. There are other points, but all together, its not a good comparison.
As to "blanks", I don't know what method the movie industry uses to ID them as blanks, other than there is no regular bullet. Movie dummy rounds, as reported earlier in this discussion, are made with a BB inside, so it can be heard when shaken. The rattle shows there's no powder.
Also, as reported earlier in this discussion, the movie industry approved process for loading a gun on the set is, the designated armorer loads it, in front of the actor who is going to use it, so they see what goes into the gun. Then the actor is handed the gun to use on the set. NO ONE else is supposed to have anything to do with it.
This was not done on the Rust movie set the day of the accident. Baldwin is responsible for that, in his role as producer of the film.
Captain of the ship rule. It DOES apply here.
Also Baldwin was the guy holding and aiming the pistol when it fired. I won't attempt to decide at what legal level, but I do believe he was responsible.
Charges have (finally) been brought. Preliminary hearings are being scheduled. IF the judge at the prelimary hearings believes there is sufficient evidence to go to trial, the cases will go to trial. If not, they won't. Since the DA spent over a year gathering and reviewing evidence, and has filed charges, he believes there is.
Personally, I would hate to see a plea deal, but I rather expect one. According to one of the news reports, the guy who actually handed Baldwin the loaded gun, and told him it was a "cold gun" (meaning not loaded with live ammo) has already accepted a plea deal.
One of the points I would personally love to find out but we will never know, is if the gun was loaded with more than one live round. When the Sheriff deputies got to the scene, the gun had already been unloaded, so unless the individual who did that testifies what rounds they removed from the gun, (if they even know) we'll never know. When the gun was turned over the authorities, it was empty, and they were given a box with ammo in it, reported to have been a mixture of live rounds, blanks, and dummy rounds.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
As a "seasoned professional" of the movie industry, Baldwin is also responsible as an actor, because he (Baldwin, the actor) accepted a firearm from someone other than the armorer and accepted that person's word that the gun was "cold" even though he (Baldwin, the actor) had not personally witnessed the gun being loaded with dummy rounds.44 AMP said:
And, of course, Baldwin was the person who pointed a firearm at a live person, which is contrary to Screen Actors Guild protocols.
And it runs pretty deep. What we do know is this:
- there were at least two negligent discharges on set before this incident
- several of the crew left the production over safety issues, which they say Baldwin ignored
- the armorer had an ND on a prior production, which resulted in Nicolas Cage demanding she be fired
- Baldwin knew about that and hired her anyway
- Baldwin handled the gun while the armorer wasn't present on set
When it comes to civil liability, we're going to hear the phrase "knew or should have known" quite a bit.
As for the actual shot fired, we're also in "knew or should have known" territory. The jury is going to be briefed on the same rules of firearms safety we all know. They're going to be told that Baldwin has been handling guns on set for decades, and they'll probably have people testify that he's been briefed on those safety rules several times in the past.
Negligence is all over this situation, and that's where the involuntary manslaughter charge comes in.
It's worth mentioning, the assistant director, who declared the gun safe and handed it to Baldwin, took a plea deal and rolled on Baldwin and the armorer.
- Status