Alec Baldwin to be charged with involuntary manslaughter in 'Rust’ film shooting - Alec Baldwin Discussion

give him 20 years , take everything away

reply

'The pair face up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 (£4,040) fine if convicted. They will be tried by a jury, prosecutors said.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-64337761

the way he was acting afterwards dont think he expected to be charged and have to go to court/jury etc. think this will be a big shock to him.

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

What, just because you have nothing? Go home and tell your wife your troubles..

reply

[–] Kowalski (63786) a year ago

LMAO...OK...THAT WAS FUNNY!

reply

[–] g-bone (545) a year ago

He'll get off.

reply

[–] PaladinNJ (20672) a year ago

This is nuts. I can see the armorer being charged but Baldwin is a victim of circumstance.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

Agree.

If they want to make the actors culpable for injuries or death handling a movie prop when an accident occurs, then make it a law they have to take firearm safety courses and to be subject to strict liability for any accidents while handling the weapon.

This will do two things: it will add another layer to the already two or three procedures already in place (although if two pros blew that, will a third by an amateur be much better?) and most likely eliminate real guns from movie sets as actors won't want to take on the legal ramifications of a gun accident.

It might also eliminate even fake guns on set. Face it, there were supposed to be no live rounds on the set yet some made it there. Even if only fake guns are used, what if a real gun ends up on set. Will the actors be happy being liable if a real gun makes it on set?

I think the future of guns in movies will be CGI.

reply

[–] maximmm (3152) a year ago

He's not just an actor - he's also the producer. He hired that armorer.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

That is true. He's culpable for *something* having to do with the accident.

reply

[–] tomimt (21) a year ago

Yeah, with this case, Baldwin being the producer does shift the blame towards him as well, especially if they can prove, that he was skimping on expenses by hiring people not qualified or something in that vein.

reply

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3636) a year ago

Lock him up!

reply

[–] Zinger (2216) a year ago

Merely a formality.

Nothing will happen.

reply

[–] Xcalat3 (3719) a year ago

like others have said I doubt he does any time.

reply

[–] bozo_500 (12548) a year ago

Baldwin fires back
https://deadline.com/2023/01/alec-baldwins-lawyer-calls-rust-shooting-criminal-charges-terrible-miscarriage-of-justice-1235227329/

reply

[–] Burgershmurger (1308) a year ago

Isn't the armorer exclusively responsible for the guns? The actor isn't the specialist nor should he have to double-check because that diminished the armorer's responsibility.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

Right now, I am unaware of any law that requires an actor to take gun safety courses. That might change in the future.

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

Literally nowhere in the firearms world will that excuse fly. It's legally very dubious as well. Whenever you are holding a gun, you are the person in immediate control of the weapon, and you are responsible for whatever happens with it. The four cardinal rules of gun safety are:

1. Always treat all firearms as if they were loaded.
2. Never allow the muzzle of any firearm to point at anything you are not willing to destroy.
3. Never put your finger near the trigger until you are ready to fire. Do not depend on any mechanical device for safety!
4. Always be sure of your target, and what is behind and in front of it.

Alec Baldwin broke all of them.

Another rule not listed among the cardinal four, but which I have heard from many trainers is: every time you pick up a gun, check it to see whether or not it is loaded -- you always treat it as loaded, regardless, but you need to ascertain its condition.

And again you do this, when you handle a gun. It's not something you take someone else's word for. The ultimate responsibility always falls on the person handling the gun. The armorer may share responsibility in this, because she didn't do her job properly, but the bottom line is: if Alec Baldwin had followed the most basic rules of gun safety -- which it was his responsibility to do, as the man in control of the weapon -- Halyna Hutchins would be alive right now.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

Alec Baldwin broke all of them.

The question is whether an actor is required to know gun safety. They hired people specifically to handle the firearms. Is it any different than any other dangerous stunt that goes wrong?

I think as a result of this accident, they will require actors to take gun safety courses AND be legally liable the same as the professional armorer if things go wrong. Since actors won't want to be personally liable for gun accidents, this will eliminate most real guns being used on sets, and indeed, may eliminate all guns real or fake and have CGI handle the gun issue.

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

Anyone handling a gun has both a moral and legal obligation to know gun safety. The legal part really only comes into play if you don't, and your ignorance and negligence leads to the death of another human being, you'll end up charged with manslaughter and possibly facing prison time.

Just like Alec Baldwin.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

Anyone handling a gun has both a moral and legal obligation to know gun safety.

Citation?

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

I thought I made it very clear... the citation is you will be charged with MANSLAUGHTER if you fuck up while handling a gun, and someone gets killed!

Seriously, I marvel that you are seeing this happen to Alec Baldwin in real time and you're still not making the connection.

I don't honestly know how to make it plainer to you. You are fully liable, in the legal sense, if you screw around with a gun and kill someone accidentally. And it is no defense to say that "well I didn't know better," or "I never had any safety training." You are damned well supposed to know better, you are damned well supposed to learn how to handle firearms safety, or you have no damn business whatsoever putting your dickbeaters on one.

You do have a moral and legal obligation not to behave like a reckless and irresponsible asshole and endanger the people around you. And no one should have to point to some statute. As an adult, you are supposed to know these things, not need to have them explained to you like a child. Familiarize yourself with the common law.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

So no citation.

What I'm getting at is that there is a very different thing between handling a gun and handling a prop gun on a movie set that is certified to be safe to handle by people whose job it is to ensure it is. Two people before Baldwin handled the gun and declared it safe. Movies break all kinds of common sense rules, and people die on movie sets for lots of reasons besides gun deaths.

That's the crux of the defense with regard to a movie set accident. How it plays out in court will be interesting and will set a precedent no matter which way the verdict lands.

The interesting thing is that this accident will virtually ensure that *all* guns are banned from movie sets, including security personnel if they have them.

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

So, it does have to be explained to you like a child. And even that's not enough. Even seeing someone get charged with manslaughter for failing to follow safety precautions is not enough to convince you that there is a legal obligation to follow those precautions, and there will be grave legal consequences to you for failing to do so. That's not enough to spell it out for you.

Tell me, how many times did you have to burn your hand on a hot stove before you were finally able to link cause and effect?

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

So, it does have to be explained to you like a child.

Perhaps so, so indulge me.

Maybe show me a citation that says movie studios must instruct actors in gun safety, or maybe show me where studios have been charged with letting actors handle weapons with no training and having been charged with that crime.

I found this regarding on-set gun safety:

According to the AP news agency, the US federal workplace safety agency doesn't regulate gun safety on set, and many states leave it to the industry to create and follow its own rules.

https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035488

More importantly, maybe explain how requiring the actor to follow safety precautions and personally inspecting the weapon jive with the established protocols for the armorer to have to *reinspect* the weapon if the actor opens the weapon to check for himself. If the armorer then *rechecks* the weapon after the actor does, does the actor then reinspect the weapon himself when the armorer hands it back setting up back and forth stalemate?

If you can sort all this out, please use simple terms. Thanks.

Nobody has the answer yet. This case will be interesting and will create precedent either way.

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

For the umpteenth time: there is no citation that says movie studios must instruct actors in gun safety. There doesn't have to be. You just apply the hoary old legal "reasonable person" standard. If you take an action with predictable bad consequences, like handling a deadly weapon carelessly, and then the predictable bad consequences happen and you cost someone their life, you are liable. You can be held responsible. You can go to be charged with manslaughter and possibly end up in prison. Could a reasonable person foresee that handling a gun recklessly, neglecting to follow the basic rules of gun safety, could have fatal consequences?

The answer is pretty obviously yes.

Yes, the the federal workplace safety agency doesn't regulate gun safety on set. Nor do most states? So. What? Really: so what? Alec Baldwin is still going to have to defend himself in criminal court. That lack of official regulation does not absolve him of responsibility. This case is unlikely to create a precedent; it will be decided on precedent, and prosecution and defense lawyers pore through case law on previous manslaughter cases.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

I believe there will be precedent set. This is not a case of someone mishandling a gun privately. Certainly if Baldwin killed Hutchins at home when mishandling his own weapon, this would be an open and shut case of manslaughter. As you say, the answer to that would be yes.

But movie stunts are a different thing. There were (supposed to be) professionals on set to handle the stunt whose jobs they were to ensure the gun was safe to handle. Baldwin was handed the weapon that was declared "safe" by professionals, which is where the wicket gets sticky IMO.

Movies have forever broken all kinds of safety rules, rules that any "reasonable person" would not break. One of my college buddy's dad knew Paul Mantz, the stunt flier that was killed filming The Flight of the Phoenix.

Either way the verdict falls, it will be interesting.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4119) a year ago

Do you believe Baldwin lied when he said he didn't pull the trigger?

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

I'm inclined to think he did lie about that, but to be honest, killing someone is very traumatic and I don't know how accurate most people's memory would be. There have been situational studies where a staged event happened in front of a dozen witnesses and most of the stories didn't jive.

I can't stand Alec Baldwin one bit and think he would say anything to cover his sorry ass, so I don't know for sure if he's outright lying or if he can't wrap his head around the fact he pulled a trigger and killed a friend.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4119) a year ago

So let's say he might've lied about that to cover his ass. But why the need to distance himself from the pulling of the trigger if the blame could only fall to the armorer anyway? Imo, that interview was to do 3 things: gain sympathy; disconnect himself from the act (via gun that shoots by itself); distance himself from a reportedly unsafe set (as a different kind of producer than the others). I think he knew they'd go after him on those last two points, so he preemptively defended himself on national television. He was worried about a concept that everyone here seems to think he need not care about --ie, pulling the trigger when he did.

It's not as simple as pinning disregard for gun safety protocols on this set, by anyone, only on the armorer. There is supposed to be a buy in from everyone on set regarding gun safety. It's not "tag, you're the armorer" then it's all on you no matter what we do. He'll skate b/c it'll be hard to prove wanton disregard for human life, but the charge itself isn't as laughable as many here are claiming. The whole idea is that everyone has a role, so if there is breakdown by one, the others might still have a chance to prevent something like this. I'm sure the AD that took the deal will have some interesting things to say about what really happened, what Baldwin really did here, as well as gun safety adherence -- or lack there of -- on this set.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

I'm on the side of Baldwin being acquitted, but I don't think the charge is laughable one bit. There are two clear and very distinct sides to this, but strangely, both arguments seem logical.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4119) a year ago

He said he would “never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them.” That's like saying, "I'm a gun safety adherent, so it couldn't possibly be me." But if he really isn't, it could be. It's like saying I'm incapable of murdering my wife b/c I loved her so much.

And I'm the sure the armorer is going to say her efforts were thwarted or ignored every step of the way. Not enough time, not enough resources, no one listened, not everyone came to the gun safety meeting prior to the day's shooting (no pun intended). The armorer is a below-the-line employee of the production. They don't have dominion over the set.

reply

[–] BeaSouth (2947) a year ago

I would hope seeing someone get charged is not enough to convince anyone.

reply

[–] Nanook (1599) a year ago

I swear I saw this after I posted https://moviechat.org/nm0000285/Alec-Baldwin/63c98478934b4f06189cf2b7/I-thought-he-was-gonna-get-away-with-manslaughter?reply=63c9c07f934b4f06189cf50f

reply

[–] Burgershmurger (1308) a year ago

This is a movie set, not real life. Why bother with an armorer then?

reply

[–] Nanook (1599) a year ago

The same reason you hire painters, carpenters, caterers, security guards, precision drivers, helicopter/drone pilots, teamsters/drivers, etc. Lots of departments/specialities to cover. A film set is a symbiotic organism that has to work in harmony to ensure its crew's safety. Ultimately it is the producer's responsibility, who hires everyone. Baldwin was the producer, as well as the person who pulled the trigger.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

You’re spouting gun safety rules that do not apply on movie sets, which have armourers specifically to take responsibility for gun safety.

They take on ALL the responsibility.

If an actor “checks to see that the gun is unloaded,” that’s considered a handling violation that requires the armourer to take the gun back, check it again, and then hand it back to the actor again.

According to you, this would result in an endless loop.

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

No, they don't take ALL the responsibility. You can't pawn responsibility for your own carelessness off on others.

You carry your own water.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

It’s not “pawning off”

It’s trade practice

Again, the practices you describe would create an endless loop. Actor checks, armourer must recheck, actor rerechecks, ad nauseum

You’re free to disagree with on-set practices, but you can’t argue that they don’t exist

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

It's pawning off. You have a responsibility to safely handle any firearm in your possession. By your logic, Alec Baldwin followed "trade practice" and he is now being charged with manslaughter.

Oops!

If "trade practices" leave you in handcuffs, then they are bad practices and should be changed.

But in fact, you're simply wrong about an actor checking the gun being considered a handling violation.

Here is a link to an interview with actor Adam Baldwin (no relation to Alec), who is an actor, wherein he described it being standard practice for an actor to perform precisely the kind of check of firearm that you say is a "handling violation" (fast forward to 3:10, also 5:50, also 7:13 for specific references to the rules).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVHvrpAm76c

So I'll take the word of a professional actor who's been working on screen with firearms since the 1980s about what actual gun safety practices are on set, over that of some keyboard commando who is inexplicably defending the kind of unsafe behavior that resulted in a woman's totally avoidable death.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

It's pawning off.

Fine, it's pawning off. But it's pawning off that's legitimized or, at the very least, justified by trade practice already in place.

You have a responsibility to safely handle any firearm in your possession.

Agreed, I do. But I'm not on a movie set. You keep missing that detail for some reason.

By your logic, Alec Baldwin followed "trade practice" and he is now being charged with manslaughter.

And by my logic he will be acquitted of those charges.

I'm sure you're not SERIOUSLY arguing that ALL charges are ALWAYS fully justified and should ALWAYS result in convictions.

If "trade practices" leave you in handcuffs, then they are bad practices and should be changed.

I agree and have no doubt that they WILL be changed.

But you can't apply those changes retroactively. Nor can you apply YOUR rules, however well justified, to a situation where trade practices state the contrary.

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

But it's pawning off that's... justified by trade practice already in place.

Except it's not. I've already provided a link to Adam Baldwin explaining what is trade practice. The way that guns were handled on the set of "Rust" was not trade practice, and the situation was bad enough that prior to the incident, several crew walked off the set protesting conditions there, which included unsafe practices in gun handling.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

Agreed, I do. But I'm not on a movie set...

This objection is ludicrous. The rules of liability that apply literally everywhere else in society don't magically get suspended on a movie set. There is no special exemption.

And by my logic he will be acquitted of those charges.

If he is, it will be a miscarriage of justice, and probably owing to his ability to afford the most expensive lawyers. It won't because he was magically shielded by "trade practices" -- especially given those aren't actually movie industry practices, as I've shown. The cast and crew of "Rust" was signally failing to follow correct practices, which is why a woman is dead.

I'm sure you're not SERIOUSLY arguing that ALL charges are ALWAYS fully justified and should ALWAYS result in convictions.

They certainly are in this case, and it should result in this case. The cast and crew of "Rust" failed to follow correct gun-safety procedures, and Alec Baldwin failed to follow the most basic rules of gun safety, and a woman is now dead as a direct result.

But you can't apply those changes retroactively. Nor can you apply YOUR rules, however well justified, to a situation where trade practices state the contrary.

Again, they don't. You're wrong about what the industry standard is.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

There are ZERO rules that apply literally everywhere in society.

Standards of conduct are ALWAYS situational, however similar they may be

You do not have the power to prescribe rules of conduct, ESPECIALLY after the fact

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

Yes there are murder is murder, anywhere in society. Manslaughter is manslaughter, anywhere in society. The law has to apply equally and in all circumstances, or it is meaningless. The closest thing you might have to an exception -- war -- is certainly nothing like filming on a movie set. Negligent homicide is still negligent homicide, whether it occurs on a movie set, or in your living room after you've had one too many shots of tequila. There are literally no laws in the criminal code that are modified or held in abeyance because you are filming a movie.

Once again -- and again, I can't believe I'm having to point this out -- these are not my rules of conduct. They are society's laws, and they are not being applied retroactively; Alec Baldwin is being held to a standard that has always been there, since the beginning of English common law.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

Wrong wrong wrong

There's felony murder in some states, not in others. There's reckless manslaughter in most states but not all.

You use the term "Negligent homicide," which in some states is only possible while driving a car.

these are not my rules of conduct.

These are ABSOLUTELY your rules of conduct. However sensible and well-founded they may be, you are not the lawgiver.

Alec Baldwin is being held to a standard that has always been there, since the beginning of English common law

Oh get over yourself. English common law doesn't apply to Arizona criminal prosecution. Whereas the reasonable person standard applies to mens rea in every criminal prosecution. THAT's where this prosecution will necessarily fall short.

[sorry I don't know how to format italics like you did]

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

Wrong wrong wrong

No, right right right.

There's felony murder in some states, not in others. There's reckless manslaughter in most states but not all.

You are conflating jurisdiction with situation. That is egregiously sloppy, muddled thinking. New Mexico is a different jurisdiction than Arizona, or California, etc., and so they therefore have different laws. A movie set is not another jurisdiction. The set of "Rust" was in New Mexico, and therefore all the laws of New Mexico apply there, exactly the same way they would apply off the set. If Baldwin had been similarly negligent with a gun anywhere else in that state, he'd be charged under the same statute. Working on a movie changes nothing.

You use the term "Negligent homicide," which in some states is only possible while driving a car.

This is nitpicking. the killing of a human being is homicide. In this case it is due to negligence. You understood exactly what I mean.

These are ABSOLUTELY your rules of conduct.

Really? Because last time I checked, it was the authorities in New Mexico who were going to charge him, not me. I also didn't write the procedures Adam Baldwin said are standard practice in the movie industry either. They're not my rules.

Oh get over yourself. English common law doesn't apply to Arizona criminal prosecution. Whereas the reasonable person standard applies to mens rea in every criminal prosecution. THAT's where this prosecution will necessarily fall short.

Wrong on all counts. The law of every state in the U.S. with the partial exception of Louisiana (which inherits some French civil law features) is common law -- i.e. judicial precedent, or case law.

The incident occurred in New Mexico, not Arizona.

And a reasonable person is expected to practice gun safety, not ignore it, so that standard won't save him.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

Again, YOU are the one posting these rules. Own 'em ... no one else is citing them

Oh and BTW, I did watch that clip and, yes, I'd agree that Adam Baldwin is a respected, respectable and authoritative, more so than either of us.

Here's HIS exact quote: "To me, that's just negligence."

"TO ME" in other words, not "IN THE INDUSTRY"

So, like you, he's applying his own, personal standards.

For all his experience, Adam Baldwin doesn't define the law.

Neither do you

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

Honestly, this thread just kills me. I've never seen so many people work so hard to defend the indefensible.

Someone else is citing the rules: the New Mexico authorities who are going to secure criminal charges. You can try to avoid this fact as much as you like, but it's still there.

And so, it's not just to Adam Baldwin that this is negligence, or to me, or to you, or to the fucking tooth fairy, it's also negligence as far as the district attorney for Santa Fe County, New Mexico is concerned. The person vested with applying the law in that jurisdiction sees Baldwin as clearly negligent, and is bringing criminal charges. It truly amazes me how hard you are working to outright deny this fact, or dismiss it as almost trivial.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4119) a year ago

They take on ALL the responsibility.

That's inaccurate.

reply

[–] ExTechOp (2770) a year ago

Great!

Fly down to New Mexico and get yourself qualified as a trial expert, why don't you?

Baldwin'll be toast.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4119) a year ago

Where does your expertise come from to make your claim?

Movie sets do have firearm safety guidelines, and some of them come from the commonly accepted guidelines. It's not tune out, any and all guidelines evaporate, along with our responsibility to them, b/c we hired an armorer on set. An armorer isn't a puppeteer. Everyone is supposed to buy into gun safety on set. For obvious reasons, the armorer/weapons master will have the most responsibility, but not ALL the responsibility. They can impress upon you to do things a certain way, but they don't have dominion over the set, where they can control your every move to the proper level of adherence. The set has to be onboard, but as with any human endeavor, some will forget, some will ignore, some will make mistakes, etc. But YOU do have a responsibility, and a role to play. You're supposed to follow the guidelines put forth, to help cover for any breakdown along the way, so a tragedy doesn't occur.

As for Baldwin, he'll skate b/c he didn't display wanton disregard for human life. But we both know he pulled that trigger, yet he made sure to say he would “never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them.” during that tv interview. Why? B/c saying he did point and pull would show disregard for the type of gun safety you think doesn't count b/c he's on a movie set with an armorer around. Along with distancing his title from a sloppy, low budget production with prior safety concerns, he knew what they'd come after even if you don't. That interview was a preemptive defense on those two points. He didn't say, "Who cares if I pointed and pulled the trigger?? We had an armorer on set!" No single person takes ALL responsibility when it comes to gun safety practices on set.

reply

[–] Callahan7 (989) a year ago

So Alec Baldwin is not Joe NRA and knowledgeable about the "four cardinal rules of gun safety"?

He is an actor. The gun was a prop. He wasn't on a firing range.

This was an accident. I saw a lawyer on the news today say he should not be prosecuted for a crime. A civil lawsuit- yes. Apparently the family of the victim was compensated. I do not know details.

This lawyer's opinion is, in his words, "a minority opinion". That doesn't mean he is wrong.

There was no intent to commit a crime. Alec Baldwin did not intend to injure or kill anyone.

It was a tragic accident.

reply

[–] Darren (1192) a year ago

So Alec Baldwin is not Joe NRA and knowledgeable about the "four cardinal rules of gun safety"?

He is an actor. The gun was a prop. He wasn't on a firing range.

No, the gun was not a prop. It was a real gun, that fires real bullets. As I've said in another post, if an animal handler brings a tiger onto a set, it's not a "prop tiger," it's a real, 600lb, fangs and claws apex predator, with the potential to kill someone if people are careless, and people need to act accordingly

When you handle guns, you better learn the rules of gun safety, or you have no business handling them.

There was no intent to commit a crime.

That's why he's being charged with manslaughter, not murder. Some crimes are committed through negligence, not malice. Drivers who kill people because they were texting and not watching the road don't intend to kill people either, but their negligence still costs lives, and gets punished accordingly. Ditto drunk drivers. I doubt any drunk driver in history ever intended to kill their victims. So what? You think they should escape consequences?

There was no intent to commit a crime. Alec Baldwin did not intend to injure or kill anyone.

See above. He still killed someone. Not maliciously, but carelessly, negligently. That's still a crime.

It was a tragic accident.

It was a preventable accident. When there are simple, well-known, well-understood steps you can take to prevent fatal accidents, and you deliberately don't take them, that's criminal negligence, and we hold people accountable for it.

reply

[–] Galilguy (2358) a year ago

The simple fact that it took this long really should disgust any fair-minded individual. It means the police and DA explored every single avenue they could- no matter how ludicrous- to avoid charging him with anything.

reply

[–] strntz (11263) a year ago

I look at it the other way - the DA is only charging Baldwin because of the notoriety of the case. The chances of him getting a conviction is virtually zero.

reply