Charges against Alec Baldwin could be refiled as forensic report shows trigger on gun used in ‘Rust’ shooting had to be pulled

[robertvarner]

Sorry if this was posted on another thread. New developments. Armorer is asking for a retrial. State failed to disclose "unexplained toolmarks on critical surfaces of the trigger and sear". Her team is saying it's potentially exculpatory for her. Could it also be exculpatory for Baldwin? I still think Baldwin is liable.

Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' armorer requests prison release days before actor's involuntary manslaughter trial

Hannah Gutierrez Reed requested to be released from prison as her lawyer plans to ask for a new trial. The "Rust" armorer's team accused the prosecution of withholding evidence.

www.foxnews.com

Of course not. We all know the professionals who've never used a gun before say they "always" just go off by themselves, which is why it makes them "dangerous weapons of war".

 

[lucusloc]

Maybe because it's been asked and answered ad nauseam? Some people believe he should, usually pointing to Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety, others say maybe, but unlikely pointing out SAGA workplace rules that actors are required to follow.
I don't think anybody on here has said no he shouldn't be charged either in one way or the other, but some folks have taken observations that he's unlikely to be charged as the actor and more likely to be charged as a producer is saying that he shouldn't be charged at all
I tend to remember more than one thread on this getting locked down because civility got lost along the way

I absolutely think he should be charged as he does hold obvious liability for criminal negligence. But he holds that liability as the producer in charge, not the actor who pulled the trigger. As the actor he holds a good deal of indemnity for being told by the safety-advisor-in-charge that his prop was safe. As the producer he should have known (and indeed did know as he had plenty of personal knowledge) that those claims of purported safety were largely bogus. And yet he carried on with the production regardless, and indeed relied upon those bogus claims of safety while horsing around on set (an ill-advised practice for which he also holds ultimate culpability for allowing to happen in the first place. Set discipline is the producer's responsibility too).

Indeed if we look at the history of his cases on the matter he has nearly gotten off multiple times on the theory that the actor (who is told a prop is safe) holds little culpability if that prop proved to be catastrophically unsafe. I think the only way we are going to get a solid conviction on the matter is if we move away from the legal theory of "but he pulled the trigger!" and move onto the far more legally sound theory that he set up an unsafe working environment in the first place. If we can establish that as the fundamental tenet of liability (which should be trivial given the laws and precedent already established on the matter) then questions of firearm function and whether or not triggers were pulled become moot. He ran a set that allowed live ammo to get loaded into guns designated fro prop use, he knew that was a problem and failed to do anything about it. Criminal negligence confirmed, plz convict.

 

[Sharkey]

Should he be charged? People get charged because the Grand Jury decides to charge them. There is no "should" other than due process. If the grand jury decides to charge him than that is what they decide to do. No one is obligated to answer your questions . This isnt a job intervierw.

True, you aren't required to answer any questions BUT you know this is a forum where we are discussing a specific topic. It's really easy to answer. Your retort about how you don't need to answer, is an answer. Sorry to put you out dude, mea culpa.

People get charged sometimes because the Grand Jury determines there is enough evidence to charge them. You do know not every case goes before a Grand Jury right? The justice system should operate with due process but c'mon, unless you live under a rock, almost everyone knows that isn't the case.

 

[orygun]

We either have individual responsibility or we don't.

Yes. He pulled the trigger when the gun was aimed directly at a person. He should take responsibility for the action.

the rest of your post could be mistaken for "stirring the pot"...

 

[Sharkey]

Maybe because it's been asked and answered ad nauseam? Some people believe he should, usually pointing to Jeff Cooper's Rules of Gun Safety, others say maybe, but unlikely pointing out SAGA workplace rules that actors are required to follow.
I don't think anybody on here has said no he shouldn't be charged either in one way or the other, but some folks have taken observations that he's unlikely to be charged as the actor and more likely to be charged as a producer is saying that he shouldn't be charged at all
I tend to remember more than one thread on this getting locked down because civility got lost along the way

So who is being uncivil? If it's been asked and answered ad nauseam, just lock the thread then right? Allah forbid we have any opposing thought in a forum that discusses most things guns. Whew, some of you'll are really wound up tight.

 

[64MercurysRule]

 

[Sharkey]

Yes. He pulled the trigger when the gun was aimed directly at a person. He should take responsibility for the action.

the rest of your post could be mistaken for "stirring the pot"...

Well then charge every other actor that points a gun and pulls the trigger at another actor. I don't see that happening, do you?

Yeah I understand that some people get the wrong perspective from what they read all the time. I mean dang, I didn't know we were all suppose to agree on stuff in a forum. How very drone like, almost like a bunch of leftists.
RIF. Group think vs. Independent think.

 

[Flopsweat]

View attachment 1909696

Can't a shetty actor point a fully functional weapon that he hasn't personally checked directly at the head of a crew member and pull the trigger? What has this world come to? Don't you realize he's better than you?

 

[64MercurysRule]

I think Alec was taking advice from Joe on safety .....
2013
Vice President Joe Biden told Field & Stream magazine in an interview " If you want to keep someone away from your house , just fire the shotgun through the door."

 

[Sharkey]

This has been covered plenty of times already in this very thread. There are plenty of cases where management has been criminally charged for their own negligence in managing working environments that lead to fatalities. Sometimes the workers also bear culpability, sometimes they do not, as their duties, responsibilities, knowledge and training dictate. In this particular case SAG guidelines (which are based off of legal precedent) dictate that actors are not responsible for safety checking equipment, period. Their job is to act, not set up the scene, run the cameras or manage props. There are other people who do all that, and it is those people who are responsible to make sure the set is safe, with the top dog in that pile being the producer. If the actor is told a set or prop is safe they have near absolute indemnity when it comes to the reasonable handling of that prop. And yes, on a movie set that would include pointing a gun (or gun like object) at a person and pulling the trigger. It is up to the armorer on set to make sure that it is impossible for such acts to result in harm to anyone on set.

But in this particular case the chain of negligence clearly points to Baldwin, even above the armorer. There were several other safety violations and accidents on set prior to the fatality. These were actively ignored, and people who had complained about the safety issues on set were either fired or already left on their own. Baldwin had ample warning and opportunity to fix these issues, but instead chose to carry on, and indeed actively took steps to hide the issues from other relevant parties. This demonstrates not just ignorant indifference, but active and willful negligence on his part. That is what garners him the lions share of the culpability. He is at fault for putting people in charge of set safety who he absolutely knew were not qualified for the position. He is at fault for knowing there were glaring issues with set safety that had already resulted in many near misses, all of which he was personally aware of, and then doing everything in his power to make sure nothing changed so that production could keep chugging forwards. He is at fault for fostering a culture of negligence and indifference that lead to a fatality.

This is not just hating on Baldwin, this is looking at the facts of the situation, considering the relevant legal precedent, and coming to the conclusion that Baldwin does indeed hold nearly all of the culpability for the fatality, shared only in part by the armorer he hired who was clearly shown to be incompetent prior to the fatality.

Now this was thought provoking, thanks for taking the time to answer (unlike some)
I agree with the part I bolded so much so that a juror could envision that at the time, Alec was the actor.

You then say it is up to the armorer on set to make sure that it is impossible for such acts to result in harm to anyone on set. Again, I agree with you and that is why I don't think Alec should be criminally charged.

You mention a chain of negligence pointing to Baldwin. I would argue it points more to the armorer who was clearly out of her element. We can say Alec should have never hired her but hindsight is 20/20. I doubt we would have said that when she was hired. How long do you think it takes to foster any kind of culture on a movie set? Now I think we both can agree that his production company will soon be bankrupt after the family civilly sues but again, I think the criminal charge is out of line (I know, I am in the minority here) and the Prosecutor will have a very difficult case to prove. Now I am not in the movie industry but I did assist in prosecuting cases for 10 years. I guess it's possible the prosecutor knows some things that hasn't been released to the media but from the media reports, I think trying to prove Alec negligent in a criminal court is going to be daunting. Let's not forget the proof needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt which is a high standard. Much easier to prove he was negligent by a preponderance of evidence in a civil court.

*Everyone take a deep breath now and unclench your fists, this is simply a discussion*

 

[64MercurysRule]

Intermission

View: https://youtu.be/XcqRuVf3Ikw?si=ILV8DgSs-b181Xco

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

So who is being uncivil? If it's been asked and answered ad nauseam, just lock the thread then right? Allah forbid we have any opposing thought in a forum that discusses most things guns. Whew, some of you'll are really wound up tight.

Try reading that again

I tend to remember more than one thread on this getting locked down because civility got lost along the way

Please to note that I said I remembered it happening, which would tend to indicate that the lack of civility happened in the past and not (at least not when I wrote that) in this thread
I know you're just asking questions and having a discussion and that's fine and all, but you have to understand that for those of us that have been engaged in this since the beginning it kind of comes across with the same energy as somebody walking into a movie theater halfway through and starting to ask a whole bunch of questions about what's happening

 

[Sharkey]

Try reading that again


Please to note that I said I remembered it happening, which would tend to indicate that the lack of civility happened in the past and not (at least not when I wrote that) in this thread
I know you're just asking questions and having a discussion and that's fine and all, but you have to understand that for those of us that have been engaged in this since the beginning it kind of comes across with the same energy as somebody walking into a movie theater halfway through and starting to ask a whole bunch of questions about what's happening

Well just like wired didn't want to answer my question, you don't have to post here if you think it has all been said with nothing more to add. You brought up the thread being locked, did they unlock it? Your implication was that people are being uncivil. Heck, I don't even think wired is being uncivil, maybe snarky but not uncivil.

Again, I am not responsible for your perceptions after you read my post. Hence my earlier comment of some of you'll being wound too tight. This thread was "revitalized" because someone posted a new story with new info. about it, followed by my posts because when this occurred, I wasn't a member here.

Maybe the definition of an online forum should be posted somewhere here on the site? Honestly I think most want to talk about it but most don't want to be questioned on their posts. At least that is the vibe I am getting which seems typical on a lot of forums. I am gonna join the crowd to make some of you'll happy, lock Alec up! He should be tried and easily serve a decade in prison for his negligence. Imagine the cojones on this guy - acting in a movie he is producing, pointing a gun someone on the set crew gave him and then he just shoots another actor and kills him while filming! The audacity of Bladwin. Feel better? C'mon, bring it in (you too wired), virtual hug.

 

[DB is Here]

Hence my earlier comment of some of you'll being wound too tight.

 

[sobo]

C'mon, bring it in (you too wired), virtual hug.

Bro-huggz all around!!!

 

[lucusloc]

You mention a chain of negligence pointing to Baldwin. I would argue it points more to the armorer who was clearly out of her element. We can say Alec should have never hired her but hindsight is 20/20. I doubt we would have said that when she was hired. How long do you think it takes to foster any kind of culture on a movie set? Now I think we both can agree that his production company will soon be bankrupt after the family civilly sues but again, I think the criminal charge is out of line (I know, I am in the minority here) and the Prosecutor will have a very difficult case to prove. Now I am not in the movie industry but I did assist in prosecuting cases for 10 years. I guess it's possible the prosecutor knows some things that hasn't been released to the media but from the media reports, I think trying to prove Alec negligent in a criminal court is going to be daunting. Let's not forget the proof needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt which is a high standard. Much easier to prove he was negligent by a preponderance of evidence in a civil court.

This would be true in the absence of other evidence. If this was the first accident on the set, with all other members having a sterling safety record, then it could easily be argued that Baldwin bore no culpability and the fault would entirely lie with the armorer. There is precedent for this allocation of liability as it is hard to justify holding management responsible for situations that they had no awareness of and had no reasonable way of mitigating or responding to before an accident. Sometimes an accident is just an accident that there was no real way to foresee it without the benefit of hindsight. This is why accidents are investigated, and even if fault could be assigned it may not be as the situation is deemed too far out of normal experiences and expectations for us to expect those involved to predict the outcome. What happens is these new experiences get written into reports, processes and procedures are updated to mitigate the discovered issues and we all learn from the situation.

But that is not what happened here. Baldwin ran a production that was already noted as being fantastically unsafe. He deliberately avoided running his set in a way that would invoke SAG oversight. They had several accidents already that had resulted in near misses for injury or death. He had a walk-off of people protesting the unsafe working conditions and his response was to say "toodles!" and hire less experienced replacements, while changing nothing about how he ran things. This is why I say that a terrible accident was basically inevitable on that set. They had such a regular cadence of near misses that the odds on one of them landing was extremely high. And the reason they had such a high cadence is they were ignoring all the well established protocols and procedures that had already been paid for in blood. They simply were not learning from the clearly established pattern of events and they wre repeating past mistakes that had already resulted in tragedy.

And that was 100% on Baldwin, who was operating his sets "fast an lean," with zero regards for the consequences despite bearing witness to those near misses himself. "Oooo, that was close, better to be lucky than good, amiright!" To top it off he would get rid of anyone not willing to play yes-man to his decrees, so all those people who saw the issues and were trying to raise hell about it were let go through various means.

Every single one of those deliberate and methodical actions added just a little bit more liability and culpability to Baldwin's shoulders. When you look at the sum totality of the situation it is hard to come to any other conclusion than Baldwin holding the lions share of the liability for the death. He basically built the circumstances for it directly, though every little management decision, through every safety protocol he was shown and then discarded, thought every whistleblower he somehow removed from his set. His management laid all the foundation work and structure for that fatality; he was told the risks he was taking and he forged on ahead until someone died.

Yes, the incompetent armorer bore some responsibility. She was part of the management structure and was well aware of the safety failures too. She had a professional and moral responsibility to do what she could to fix these issues or get fired for trying. She did not do that, instead choosing to continue playing yes-man to a dangerously egocentric boss, while being woefully under-qualified herself. It's hard to say Baldwin could not see her incompetence coming when he already had multiple prime examples of it o reference beforehand. She was kept around because she did not challenge him on safety issues.

She was also the delegate-in-charge of the device that was the proximal cause of the fatality. But -again- this really could have been anyone on set. Maybe a rigger, maybe the bus driver, hell who knows if even the caterers were legit and someone would have died of food poisoning instead. All a possibility on a Baldwin production. Simply too many corners being cut everywhere. This is why I state she does not bear all the culpability. Baldwin had reasonable knowledge to deduce she was not fit for the job. Hell, he had that knowledge for half his production crew. If he knew his crew was not fit for the job he bears the majority responsibility when they screw up.

did they unlock it?

There was another thread on the topic that was closed. I think there are a few more duplicates that have died as well, since this one became the primary discussion thread.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Well just like wired didn't want to answer my question,

Which of your questions hasn't been answered? The confusion here might be that we had addressed your questions but you don't feel the same way

You brought up the thread being locked, did they unlock it?

Again, "threads" not "this thread", IIRC there have been 5 or 6 different threads on this subject

Maybe the definition of an online forum should be posted somewhere here on the site?

Well, we do have rules posted

Community Rules

This page explains the rules members must follow when using our website.

www.northwestfirearms.com

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Baldwin ran a production that was already noted as being fantastically unsafe. He deliberately avoided running his set in a way that would invoke SAG oversight.

Some suggestions were made that he chose to film in NM because the state had a reputation for being more 'production' friendly than SAGA friendly and it was that lack of state oversight that allowed him to save money by hiring under or even "un" qualified crew members, like the armorer

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Yes, the incompetent armorer bore some responsibility. She was part of the management structure and was well aware of the safety failures too. She had a professional and moral responsibility to do what she could to fix these issues or get fired for trying. She did not do that, instead choosing to continue playing yes-man to a dangerously egocentric boss, while being woefully under-qualified herself. It's hard to say Baldwin could not see her incompetence coming when he already had multiple prime examples of it o reference beforehand. She was kept around because she did not challenge him on safety issues.

Here's an odd theoretical thought I just had
While yes, I do agree that she bore some responsibility for all the reasons you listed, if it could be proven* that she was intentionally hired because she was under/unqualified and it would be easy to bully her into overlooking safety rules in an effort to save money and stroke the ego of her dangerously egocentric boss, could she make a valid argument that that reduced her responsibility because she was specifically hired to fail?




*not saying it could be proven, just spitballin' a question I find interesting

 

[lucusloc]

Here's an odd theoretical thought I just had
While yes, I do agree that she bore some responsibility for all the reasons you listed, if it could be proven* that she was intentionally hired because she was under/unqualified and it would be easy to bully her into overlooking safety rules in an effort to save money and stroke the ego of her dangerously egocentric boss, could she make a valid argument that that reduced her responsibility because she was specifically hired to fail?




*not saying it could be proven, just spitballin' a question I find interesting

I have no idea how that would work and I have no idea what kind of precedent (if any) exists to support or refute the theory, but I bet a lawyer would love to get paid to find out.

Some suggestions were made that he chose to film in NM because the state had a reputation for being more 'production' friendly than SAGA friendly and it was that lack of state oversight that allowed him to save money by hiring under or even "un" qualified crew members, like the armorer

Yes, he did a lot of finagling to avoid coming under and kind of SAG oversight, from choosing to the location to how he hired people. It is my understanding that he did have some SAG affiliated crew, but they were hired in such a way that SAG guidelines did not really apply to the set as a whole, just those specific people. I get the desire to run it that way, it is far cheaper than having to deal with union oversight. But even if you are running it that way you should still at least adhere to the basic safety protocols. Those are there for a reason.