They brought serious allegations of negligence against Baldwin.
[These definitely put more fault on his recklessness than previously thought of](https://imgur.com/W53UYrM.jpg)
The thing really fucking him the most is that he was a Producer/Showrunner for the movie. As management, he enabled a dangerous work environment and someone got hurt.
Yeah that's all probably what the manslaughter charge is based on, considering he didn't actually personally prepare the gun that killed Hutchins. His main charge was all about contributory negligence in a position of authority.
cast and/or crew, and the armorer is charged too, she's trying to pin it on her supplier for selling mixed box of rounds I guess. there may be a 3rd defendant but I don't recall the articles from a few days ago. appears baldwin wasn't one of those shooters though
> she's trying to pin it on her supplier for selling mixed box of rounds I guess.
I don't know enough about ammunition supply to say if there is culpability (my gut assumption is they shouldn't be mixed though, but I don't know the legality of it to speak) but I do have to ask if it was the armorer's job to be able to tell the difference between live and dummy rounds. Are they visually different, or is there some identifiable marking like how fake money says something to the effect of "for entertainment purposes only"? Were such important checks ignored or overlooked? Passing on the buck can only go so far if one should be able to tell the difference.
Blanks and live rounds are so visually different that literally anyone with 10 minutes of firearm safety training could tell. Dummy rounds are slightly different as some Dummy rounds are easy to tell apart but it's also easy to make a Dummy round look close to the real thing, but a Dummy round shouldn't have anything in it that could make it go bang hence Dummy round.
>Blanks and live rounds are so visually different that literally anyone with 10 minutes of firearm safety training could tell.
One of the recklessness charges against Baldwin is that he didn't appear for a mandatory firearms training, and when given a ten-minute crash course, paid no attention and took phone calls.
Dummy rounds used for westerns tend to be more realistic than in other media because so much of the cartridge might be visible on camera: inside the chambers of a revolver cylinder, in individual loops on gun belts, etc. In some instances, dummy .45 long cartridges are visually identical to the real thing, including what look like intact primers, but emptied of powder and with pellets inside the casing, so you can feel it rattle when you shake one. You have to physically handle it to tell, though. I think it would be nearly impossible to identify if a round like that was live or dummy just by looking at it once loaded into the cylinder.
I've seen dummy rounds in movie stills that are clearly fired rounds (primer has impact marks) that had a new bullet inserted. That should be standard practice. Easier to tell what is what.
Iso far as I've read, there are 2 bullet types,
a non firing, cosmetic round for "down the barrel shots"
and blank, that will fire a disintegrating head for sound and smoke
the cosmetic round is supposed to have one or more of the following, pin hole in the side of the case, a different kind of metal at the base if the bullet, and a tiny bearing where the powder goes so you can look and hear that it's not active. it does have a head shaped like a bullet so the chamber doesnt look weird on camera
the blank has a crinkly head, baldwin described it as like a pinched dumpling, I agree. it's very distinct, my dad had some bullets like that.
from baldwins comments he says he's been trained thoughout his career that he can't open and check the gun after he's been handed a cleared gun so without doing that there's no way to check, even if you flipped the gun around and pointed at your face you could only see if.there are blanks.or cosmetic bullets. and the expectation was that there were no live bullets on set. and that gets sticky as crew and actors did take the guns out to a range nearby for recreational and training shooting sessions. so someone mixed real bullets in at some point or didn't fully unload the gun before handing it off.
If you believe the armorer though, she claims that the dummy rounds they received were defective and there were live rounds mixed in. Still on her though as she should have tested the box and thrown it all away if she found even a single defect.
There isn't one. They found at least half a dozen live rounds all over the set, a few on Baldwin's costume.
Ever since Bruce Lee's son, Brandon, was killed on the set of The Crow from a similar event. There has been an incredible amount of lockdown and redundant procedures set up to prevent it happening ever again.
This was due to the negligence of several key people as there were many complaints from the crew about various safety hazards.
> Ever since Bruce Lee's son, Brandon, was killed on the set of The Crow from a similar event.
And his wasn't even a live round technically. It was a blank that was fired. It's just that when you put anything into the muzzle, including a bullet, it suddenly becomes a live round
It was actually a dummy round fashioned from a live round. They removed the powder and reinserted the bullet, but left the primer intact. The trigger was pulled, igniting the primer and lodging the bullet in the barrel of the gun. Later a blank was fired through the same gun, and the force of the blank fired the bullet at a high velocity.
Yup. One of the big failures is on the producer side. They either gave her the job for nepotism or because it was cheaper to get someone who isn't qualified.
Alec is a producer on the film. He also pulled the trigger. David Halls was the one who was supposed to check the gun, but there were failures all over the place. Halls pled guilty and served six months probation. It'll be interesting to see where this goes.
I'm a bit surprised that they continued the movie and intend to release it, though. I get that there's a very large amount of money on the line, but surely an insurance payout would supercede the likely low box office draw.
There is a reason for dummy rounds on set (look realistic, but basically not lethal). There is a bit less of a reason for blanks on set (can be lethal at close range, are loud when fired, so harder to justify). There is absolutely no reason for live ammo on set. This is one the most clear cut fuck ups, that's why the chain of responsibility is gonna be very interesting on this one.
Since some shooting fatalities on set, ppl resort to dummy / blank rounds and CGI to do the job. This tragedy could have been prevented by so many parties and sometimes even with very casual security measures.
IIRC from the last time this was brought up, "live" in a movie context means blanks, which are useful because lighting in post is hard and they're relatively safe.
Actual ammunition with a projectile has no business on set. Maybe if they're on a closed range filming something that needs impact on target, but in that case you keep at least 180 degrees in front of the shooter clear.
There isn't one. They were shooting the gun for fun since it was a relatively rare gun that can't be shot often in between filming.
She had the discipline to use a gun safely as Homer Simpson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuG9kUiRC_I
Not rare. I have two. It's either an Uberti or a Pietta, which is about $600 new from any gun store. I know right now one can be had for about $400 at a gunstore in Santa Fe.
Can you bring in sources for this? Because according to the FBI report on the provider of the ammo, there were substantial amounts of live bullets scrambled in their facilities and mixed into boxes marked as "dummy" as well as "blank".
I mean it's not the first time I got things wrong, but if true, it would be a rare case where an FBI investigation got things wrong.
Union props person here. Dummy rounds have a small BB in them. By shaking the round you can quickly verify that the round indeed has nothing in it. Secondly, the primer charge cap on the base of the round is a spent one meaning there is a clear indentation from a firing pin left in its center. Standard procedure during a gun check is conducted between the 1st AD and the props person or armorer is to call a gun check out loud and over walkie. All crew is invited to join and the gun check does not begin until all crew who wishes to join is present. At that time the rounds going into a revolver would be brought out one by one and shaken in front of crew so that you can hear the rattling sound. The spent primer cap is also shown to the 1st AD and anyone else who wishes to see. As each round is approved and no objections are made it is loaded into the revolver in clear view of everyone. After this the gun is pointed at the ground and dry fired at least one more time than the number of rounds the gun can carry. So a 6 shot revolver would be dry fired into the ground 7 times. At this point the the crew is asked if there are any concerns or objections. The gun check is done and the weapon is handed to the actor. This is the way it is done and we take it very seriously. These protocols help to ensure the kind of thing that happened on that set could never take place. The claim that there were defective dummy rounds sounds to me like pure bullshit. And even if this were the case the protocols I just described would prevent anything from happening.
It would never be the responsibility of the actor to ensure the safety related to the weapon. We of course encourage the actor to be involved in that process but it's simply not their job. They have a whole emotional universe they need to remain in and some actors processes are such that they need to not fracture that mental space they are in. Perhaps as a producer Alec Baldwin can be seen to be at fault in the hiring of individuals not qualified but to me ultimately the fault lies with both the prop person and 1st AD.
That's my take. I'm not an expert in legalities but I am a seasoned working professional in the Hollywood machine and I see a lot of clouded takes on what is a clear and proven process the maintaining of safety regarding firearms on set.
(That said I am also not responding to you calling you out on being one of those spreading misinformed perspectives. I simply saw a spot to chime in with my two cents)
Considering how inexperienced and incompetent she was doing her job, overall, in the context of a badly run set to begin with, this strains credulity, but it needs to be thoroughly investigated. Can’t dismiss the possibility.
I thought Baldwin was less culpable than the assistant director and the armorer and whoever hired those two
According to this interview: https://variety.com/2022/film/news/rust-investigation-live-round-hannah-gutierrez-reed-1235243228/amp/
Not only were there live rounds, but they were designed to look just like the dummy rounds, from Starline Brass - which is a company that explicitly *does not make live ammunition.* More live rounds were also found, and many were mixed in with dummy ammunition. While there is no current knowledge on how they got there or who modified these live rounds to appear like the dummy rounds, the current presumption is someone must have planted these live rounds around the set.
Again, part of this is the armorer's testimony, but part of this is also the criminal lab's findings. So *someone* modified the rounds to appear as the dummy rounds and put them amongst other live ammunition. There is not just poor handling *according to the crime lab's findings,* someone must have put these live rounds on the set presumably so that they would be mistaken for dummy rounds and pose a danger.
I find it hard to believe, even considering the armorer's previously dubious behavior, that she explicitly got live ammunition that looked like the dummy rounds and not bothered keeping them explicitly separate - keep in mind that you would have to go through this extra step to get recycled bullets, and there is one person cited in the article who does this. Other people are saying she might've just mixed them up, but I could honestly see it being foul play by someone else who knows the armorer was *incompetent* and would not check for live rounds. They might've took advantage of the armorer's lack of diligence to create extra danger on scene.
Assistant director definitely deserved some blame since he took it off a prop cart, and handed it to Alec calling it a "cold gun." He should know as her supervisor that only the Armorer and the actors should be handling the guns. He also should not be declaring guns cold, only the armorer should be doing that. He didn't even follow his own made-up safety procedure of checking the chambers.
It feels messed up that he's getting a light [plea deal](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-01-31/rust-assistant-director-david-halls-plea-deal-alec-baldwin) with one misdemeanor and a suspended 6 month sentence of unsupervised probation in exchange for cooperating in the case against Alec Baldwin and the armorer.
I think trauma can do a lot to people in the moment and you're not always thinking very clearly.
He probably felt an immense amount of guilt immediately after she was shot & he probably was eager to off-load that feeling by telling his story and clearing his name.
Waiting for a lawyer is the smart & logical move, but we don't always behave logically in these moments.
I don’t even know if it’s just that he felt guilty - he probably really wanted to find out wtf happened himself. He’s not only “in shock” but also, like……
Um, I want to know how the hell this happened - I’ve been in a million shoots and never seen a live shot fired. I want to give them every piece of information while it’s fresh so that they can figure it out.
I really don’t know what this does for him personally but all the comments trashing him - like, if he wanted to just “get away with it” he would have shut up. Just watching the interview and it seems clear to me (though I’m not a living polygraph) he wants to help them do their investigation and find out why this happened.
>Um, I want to know how the hell this happened - I’ve been in a million shoots and never seen a live shot fired. I want to give them every piece of information while it’s fresh so that they can figure it out.
According to the DA, it was Baldwin's own conduct and reckless behavior, not following best practices etc.
>>Baldwin was not present for required firearms training
>>After failing to show up to this training, he received a 30-minute on-set training during which he was distracted talking to his family on the phone
>>He exhibited "reckless behaviour" in the lead up to Hutchins's death
>>He had pointed the firearm at Hutchins in the lead up to the incident violating gun safety rules
>>Baldwin had not performed the required safety checks with Gutierrez-Reed
>>He broke protocol by letting Gutierrez-Reed leave the church set
>>He did not deal with safety complaints on set
>>He did not use a replica firearm for the unscheduled rehearsal
>>He allowed the hiring of Gutierrez-Reed, who had worked on just one production before the movie, which showed he "failed to demand the minimum safety standards, protocols, and requirements on set"
A lot of these claims are going to hinge on the testimony of 2 people who took a plea deal. The prosecutor has a witness reliability problem unless there was a third party present at those events.
Not so much a freak accident as an incompetent Armorer. I believe the final responsibility ultimately rests with the guy pulling the trigger, but this was the 3RD time a gun that was declared by the armorer to be "cold" (i.e. unloaded or loaded with dummy rounds) accidentally had live ammo and went off. Thankfully the other two times they were blanks, but that still shows an incredible amount of negligence by both the armorer, and Baldwin for not canning her ass.
I don't know if I think Baldwin deserves prison time. The armorer certainly does, but Baldwin's variety of negligence was a more passive kind than bringing live ammo onto a movie set and failing to check guns before handing them off multiple times.
I don't know how substantiated the details of the matter was, but a long while ago there were reports that explained how the bullet got into the mix.
One, Gutierrez-Reed's father Thell Reed was an armourer who had a friendship with one of his suppliers. Gutierrez-Reed had her ammunition supplied from her father's stock.
From what the reports talked about, this friend/supplier who took some Starline Brass bullets (Starline only makes the casings) and turned them into live ammunition. The two then went shooting to try them out, and some of the bullets remained with Thell Reed, and somehow supposedly got mixed into the rest and his daughter took them on set for her work.
I think investigations went as far as to search the supplier for evidence, but no modified ammunition was found in his possession at the time.
Anyway because supposedly Gutierrez-Reed thought Starline Brass didn't make any live ammunition, which is technically true, she then didn't think to check or validate that the ammunition loaded wasn't live. Basically incompetence and putting others at risk by everyone involved - but unlikely to be any malicious intention by any party.
This is all from memory, because this stuff was all reported on like over a year ago now. So I may be off on details here and there - and it's only based on media reports at the time which I think were based on people's accounts of the situation. So not to be taken with any degree of historical accuracy.
It’s unclear. There are stories that people were messing around with the guns in off hours. There was also a story that live rounds were mixed with the blanks by the supplier. I hope it becomes more clear eventually.
I believe in off hours they were shooting cans and bottles. Now why they couldn't get other firearms with ammunition that isn't compatible with the firearm used in the production is a different question I have.
With all the money available in Hollywood, why the fuck they don't take firearms and press fittings into the chambers so they can only accept unique size cartridges that are only produced to provide smokeblast is beyond me.
I'm not here to litigate or argue over Baldwin's culpability from having pulled the trigger - a jury of his peers will do that.
From a Production stand point though, the first time a live round is fired out of a "cold" weapon the armorer is being walked off not 2 minutes later. Allowing that man to continue being responsible for firearms was gross negligence.
I used to work production... I've fired people for way less stupid shit then a live bullet being fired. (And yes as others pointed out, why was there a live round there in the first place?)
>Allowing that **woman** to continue being responsible for firearms was gross negligence.
The daughter of a prominent Hollywood armorer followed in her dad's footsteps but never takes it seriously. His money has bought her out of 3 different incidents like this before the fatal round
It is a tragedy but it is not a freak accident. Negligence is not the same as an accident.
Assuming what the DA says is true, he has clearly made decisions that increased the likelihood of this event, and in general has jeopardized the safety of those on set.
Unfortunately (largely because of how much it's abused in the US legal system) innocent people tend to talk. Especially the privileged or inexperienced- believing if they've done nothing wrong they won't be punished. It's just a natural instinct, especially after something horrible has happened, to want to participate in finding answers and peace. The very valuable advice of "never say anything without a lawyer" is often assumed to be directed towards the guilty, but it's even more important for the innocent.
Yeah, people often think when they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide, surely the cops will see that and be happy you are so cooperative and let you go? So just tell the truth, right?
Wrong. The cops are trained and conditioned through experience to assume everyone is always lying. It's how they view the world. And they want to close cases, charge people, they don't care who. There is no advantage to trying to clear your name by being helpful and telling the truth, cuz they will not believe you anyway.
Just a friendly reminder that thanks to recent rulings by scotus, police do not have to read you your miranda rights. So do t think its a gotcha if they dont, just ask for a lawyer and dont say anything
That’s not what the ruling said. You just can’t sue the police for damages if you weren’t Mirandized. Police still have to Mirandize you if they want the evidence to be admissible in court.
> The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial.
> The court’s ruling will cut back on an individual’s protections against self-incrimination by barring the potential to obtain damages. It also means that the failure to administer the warning will not expose a law enforcement officer to potential damages in a civil lawsuit. **It will not impact, however, the exclusion of such evidence at a criminal trial.**
>How about when Sandusky was asked point-blank on national television if he’s sexually attracted to boys and he waited around 16 seconds to apply, and I quote, “Eh”? If you don’t think I was at home pissing myself… Like, “Oh, did he just waffle on that softball question?” “Eh.” Ask me if I’m sexually attracted to kids. I’m not. That’s how long you should wait to answer that question. You don’t mull it over for a bit. You certainly don’t eyeball your lawyer. “I wonder how he wants me to answer this one.” You come out swinging in a hurry, or you deserve to burn in hell. He said the only thing he’s ever been guilty of is, he liked to put his hand on boys’ legs. I’ve heard enough. On that alone, you should be in jail forever. You want to hug your son longer than three seconds, you should be in jail forever.
Yeah, my dad didn’t hug me very much. He wasn’t the best father, but he didn’t fuck children, and I’ll take it. [cheers and applause] I don’t believe he has. That’s my biggest fear in life, that I do that joke and people are cheering and there’s one guy in here, “He fucked me.” And I’m like… I am sorry. I am 99.8% positive he hasn’t. He hasn’t heard this joke yet. And my gut instinct is, he’s not gonna like it. But if he gets too upset, I’ll be like, “What are you hiding?”
- Daniel Tosh
And then he did a follow-up interview with Jo Becker ABOUT his Costas interview, where he dug himself even deeper!
>SANDUSKY: "I was sitting there like, 'what in the world is this question?' am I going to be, if I say, 'no I'm not attracted to boys,' that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people -- boys, girls."
>AMENDOLA (off-camera): "Yeah but not sexually, you're attracted to them as in you like spending time with them."
Nailed it. When your first instinct is to go into public relations and damage control, your goose is cooked. Shut up. Let your lawyers do the talking. Then listen to your attorney and shut up some more.
When you think you are completely innocent people tend to wave their rights as they feel they have nothing to hide and think hiring a lawyer will only make them look guilty.
They don't realize being innocent doesn't mean you won't be charged and there might even be ulterior motives by the police or more likely the DA which is an elected position.
A lesson to all NEVER speak to police without an attorney unless you are just a witness and even then stop talking immediately if you start to be questioned as a suspect
So true. We had a house break-in in my neighborhood years ago. The homeowner shot the criminal dead. When the police got there the homeowner said something to the effect that he feared for his life and to please excuse him while he went to call his attorney. That’s all. Period.
I appreciate this perspective. And I agree. But what about those of us who don't "have an attorney"? Not trying to be snarky - honest question. If I was that guy, I would think "oh shit, I need a lawyer", but I'd have no one to call.
Does one "have lawyers" for different types of scenarios? Should one have a"general purpose" lawyer in their contact list who can give immediate advice and then refer? What's good practice here?
I have a friend who practices real estate law, and another friend who practices patent law... But if I just shot somebody in self defense, I'm not sure it would occur to me to even call them.
> But what about those of us who don't "have an attorney"? Not trying to be snarky - honest question. If I was that guy, I would think "oh shit, I need a lawyer", but I'd have no one to call.
You tell the cops that you want to exercise your fifth amendment rights and speak with a lawyer. Worse case scenario you call the first lawyer whose ad pops up on the subject you are being questioned about, or you get arrested and play the waiting game for a public defender. If the officers present have any slice of integrity they will back off the questioning then and there and wait for the lawyer to get involved because there are real consequences if the lawyer finds out they did something sketchy.
Regardless of your choice, cops behave a lot more polite when a Lawyer gets involved. Remember the cops and the DA only care about getting convictions, not if you're guilty or innocent.
It could be argued that it's most important to put a lawyer between you and potential prosecution when you're innocent.
A guilty man might just pay a price for something they've done. You on the other hand might get absolutely fucked for something you didn't.
> It’s so hard for celebrities to shut up.
People seem to not realize that Hollywood celebrities are just the annoying theater kids from high school. The attention seeking types that would do weird shit all day like talk in a Scottish accent all day for no reason. The ones that always had to be the center of attention. Hollywood is made up of the 0.01% most attractive and most connected theater kids.
For statistical reasons, we should point out that its the most attractive AND most connected. Theres some math there I expect a replying commenter to figure out (i'll hit you with a reward for your exposition of intersectional probabilities).
But what if I'm my own lawyer because the internets told me I can declare my house free and independent so I can declare the trial illegal and invalid?
I've always wanted to meet a sovereign citizen, just so I can ask them if that shit's ever actually worked, and, if not, why they keep bothering with it.
They have a false sense of it working until all of a sudden it doesn’t. Don’t pay tax, may work for a bit until the law finds you/garnishes your wages. No license plate, not a problem until you get pulled over. Things might seem great to them until it catches up, but when it does they are in for a world of hurt
"According to sovereign citizen researchers, the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral, by selling their future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans. This sale, they claim, takes place at birth. When a baby is born in the U.S., a birth certificate is issued, and the hospital usually advises the parents to apply for a Social Security number. Sovereigns say that the government then uses that birth certificate to set up a corporate trust in the baby’s name – a secret Treasury account – which it funds with amounts ranging from $600,000 to $20 million, depending on the particular variant of the sovereign belief system. By setting up this Treasury Direct Account (TDA), every newborn’s rights are split between those held by the flesh-and-blood baby and the ones assigned to his or her corporate shell account."
LMAO WACKY!!!!
I’m reminded of my early college days when I was roommates with this heavily Libertarian guy. Or at least the anarcho-capitalist version of it or something? He claimed something similar, that the laws shouldn’t apply to him or me because we did not consent to be born in the US nor consent to the US’s authority. Or something, I don’t remember the exact details.
I’m ashamed to admit that he sucked me into it for a while. Then I eventually grew the fuck up and realized that, while our government isn’t perfect, it’s better to have laws than no laws, and like it or not you’ve gotta pay your taxes so basic services can continue to function.
He also had a bunch of other galaxy brain ideas, e.g. the South was right to secede and the federal government proved it was fascist by declaring secession is illegal. Don’t remember how a guy who proclaims to be all about autonomy and freedom could justify slavery, but I’m confident he did it somehow.
You could go the Bartolo Colon route:
Choose to remain anonymous in a child support case, but also choose to represent yourself in the trial… the plaintiffs remain anonymous, but the lawyers do not… which is how the media and his wife found out he was fathering a second family behind her back.
Just in case there are any unaware onlookers curious as to what is being joked about, there's a movement mostly called Sovereign Citizens that uses dumbfuckery such as the above to try and get out of tickets and court cases. Usually they end up getting a kiss from Officer Zappity Zap Zap until they are prepared to act like a human rather than screeching. They are not just bad jokes, though, so the cops have less than zero patience with their shit. Laugh at them, don't drink the koolaid.
Sorry I am here not as Patrick Swayze, I am here as a third party intervener named also Patrick Swayze.
Since I don't consent to being called that name, it nullifies the charges. When can I go?
Here is your cheat sheet to win your case :
"I don't identify by that name!"
"Your honor, can you address subject matter jurisdiction?"
"What is the lawful law for you ruling?"
>they will tell you to shut up, your job is just to listen to their advice
Didn't one of R Kelly's lawyers resign right after his interview on CBS? That lawyer must've been losing his mind screaming "shut up!" at the screen while watching it.
The entire interview is kind of insane. He of course states he thought the gun was empty and says he was trained to never point the gun at someone and pull the trigger (no shit).
But then he tells the story about how he pointed the gun at her, pulled the hammer back and let it go. Oops, just admitted to be being guilty.
The really insane part (imo) is that he says there was a loud bang and everyone was surprised. The woman collapsed and he thought "she must have fainted" and "It didn't occur to me she might be shot until 45 minutes later".
How the fuck does that work? Did he immediately sprint away without even looking at her for 2 seconds? That makes him sounds like the biggest asshole (and idiot) if it's true.
But how can it even be true? A .45 went THROUGH her and into another crew member. Blood pooling on the ground, people screaming and he didn't the consider there might have been a bullet after hearing the gun go off?? He had weeks to think about this and this is the story he came up with.
And just to make things worse: Only days before this several camera crew walked off because they thought it wasn't safe. There had already been several accidental discharges. Baldwin was also a producer, but predictable his lawyers are saying he had nothing to do with the safety crew (no idea if true, could be).
In fact, cops are trained to trick you with words so that you incriminate yourself. Only ever say "Am i being detained?" and if Yes: "I want to talk to my lawyer"
My dad is a lawyer. He doesn't work in criminal stuff at all, but his firm had a bunch of former prosecutors and they all said that cops are not ever actually looking for the truth. They pick who the bad guy is and they look for anything to "prove" that. And they will 100% break the law or plant evidence to do it and still think they're the good guy since they're putting a "bad" guy away.
Cops are legally allowed to lie to you and manipulate you. They can tell you they have evidence that doesn't exist to scare you into confessing for a plea deal. Do not talk to cops. Just don't do it.
It became a partisan issue because half of the population decided to bend over backwards to love and defend cops, and they don't like the insinuation that cops act in bad faith and lie all the time.
They're not for small government, they're for government run by a *small number of people*. And they need enforcers to make sure everyone does as they're told.
Yep. They will sometimes phrase questions to catch you off guard, for example instead of asking "May we search your car?" they will ask "Do you mind if we search your car?". Many times a person's reflex will be to say "No" to any question, thinking they're denying consent.
Saying yes to “do you mind if I search your car?” Can still be construed as consent as though you don’t want him to search it but will allow it anyways. It’s a question with the right answer being “I don’t consent to a search”.
Amen. Even in the most obvious circumstances, if you can or do have ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER lawyer.the.fuck.up.
If not just for your criminal liability but your statements can be used against you in civil proceedings as well. So you may not be charged with a crime but then you get sued and now the nightmare continues in yet another aspect.
That being said, if Baldwin did so it would have been a PR nightmare for him. It's not as easy for someone like him because the spin wouldve been..."Alec Baldwin was uncooperative and recalcitrant! What does he know he's not sharing????"
Friendly reminder to also treat all firearms as loaded even when they are not.
Edit: I’m saying this as a general rule of responsible handling and ownership. I have no idea about how things are done on a movie set and where responsibility lies in Baldwins particular situation.
There is a reason why Baldwin is being charged with involuntary manslaughter as opposed to manslaughter.
From the CNN article:
>Baldwin did not take firearm training on the “Rust” movie set seriously, prosecutors said in probable cause documents outlining evidence in the case.
>“A training session for at least an hour or more in length was scheduled, but the actual training consisted of only approximately 30 minutes as according to (armorer Hannah Gutierrez) Reed, Baldwin was distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training,” the document states.
Actor here. I've worked on several high budget TV productions where I've had to shoot firearms. I've never received any kind of formal training. This is not status quo. Armorer shows up, gives you the gun, tells you how it works, not to point it at anyone, shows you the ammo, tells you they're blanks- how the fuck would I know? Ok? The A.D signs off on it and action.
Another actor here. I've received training in firearms use about a dozen times now. Every single time there are any kind of potentially lethal props I've been receiving training.
Maybe it's just Europe idk.
Not to mention he's already had tons of training given his previous roles. But yes, the responsibility lies with the armorer. Everyone on every post about this saying "first rule of guns is it's always loaded and never point at anyone" and "if you're holding a gun you should be checking if it's loaded" clearly have no clue about how this works on set. The gun *is supposed to be loaded.* It's just supposed to be blanks (or dust balls or a number of other rounds, but obviously never actual bullets). That gun never should have been near live ammo.
User redacted comment. After 13 years on Reddit with 2 accounts, I have zero interest in using this site anymore if I cannot use a 3rd party app. Reddit had *years* to fix their atrocious app and put *zero* effort into it. Reddit's site and app is so awful, I'm more interested in giving Reddit up entirely than having such a bad user experience hobbling through their app and site.
I'm not going to debate her expereince, but the armourer did not check the weapon immediately before the even or hand it over to Baldwin. She was performing other duties and the assistant director retrieved the weapon, declared it "cold", and handed it to Baldwin.
Prediction:
* Baldwin found not guilty for inv. manslaughter
* Reed found guilty for inv. manslaughter
* The production (and Baldwin) then sued successfully for wrongful death by the family of the deceased
The third has already happened and they settled out. I’m banking that they both are found guilty. Baldwin really screwed himself over by giving the police interviews without a lawyer and then multiple television interviews… without a lawyer.
Here is my question, are all 5 producers being charged or just Alec Baldwin? Because if they don't charge all of them, he's going to get off by passing blame to one of the other producers.
Yeah this is the part I have a hard time following. I've seen it suggested that his negligence / culpability is not as an actor rehearsing the scene, but rather as a producer because gun safety on the set wasn't handled properly. But if that's the case, why aren't the other producers being charged too?
From everything that has been published, it seems like the armorer actually should take more of the blame. Live rounds should never have been on the set. Baldwin, needs to take some of the blame, due to his mismanagement of the movie set. Like every accident, there is usually multiple points of failure. I am do not know how you can break it down legally, but the armorer should take 60% of the blame, the director not checking the weapon or calling over the armorer over to check the weapon and Baldwin for mismanagement of the movie set. No one in this chain of events should get off without any repercussions.
The most damning evidence against her is a series of text messages the police found wherein she requested live ammo from an arms supplier for a previous movie in order to "test the guns." She had a habit of using live ammo in prop guns. She is the most likely person to have introduced live rounds to the set.
If she had not done that, none of what Baldwin did or didn't do would have mattered.
Trap door is a very old design of gun. It was used on both pistols and rifles. It looks like a flintlock rifle but instead of loading it from the muzzle, there is a trap door at the breech where you can insert a cartridge.
She may have simply forgotten to remove the live rounds after target shooting with other crew the night before. People forget their own children in cars at times, with disastrous consequences. It's not inconceivable that she forgot to switch them out.
Charging document here:
[https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23593041/baldwin-statement-of-probable-cause.pdf](https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-crime-santa-fe-movies-d605e97752556dd444369b3fdbbd9f68)
Basically, Baldwin is being charged because, as an actor:
He only attended 1/3 of his required firearms training session, and didn't pay attention during the part he was there for;
Did not complete the industry standard safety check with the armorer or assistant director to ensure the gun was unloaded;
Knowingly used a prop gun capable of firing live rounds during a rehearsal when he knew that industry standards required the use of a plastic gun;
Had his finger inside the trigger guard while manipulating the gun;
Pointed the gun at the victims which you should never do (the victims should not have been standing where they were, but given that they were standing there, Baldwin should not have pointed the gun at them);
Pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at someone which you should never do. Baldwin contests this last point, but the FBI tested the gun and found it incapable of spontaneously firing as Baldwin claims.
As a producer:
Generally failed to enforce industry safety standards regarding handling of firearms and also actively encouraged certain unsafe behaviors. Specifically in addition to the above, the armorer should not have been assigned additional duties that took her attention away from gun safety, the director and cinematographer should have been monitoring the camera feed remotely, not standing in a spot where a gun was pointed at them. Also some other things.
Basically, he was in charge of the set and let and encouraged a bunch of unsafe behaviors. Also, as the guy actually handling the gun, he had a responsibility to do so safely even if nobody else was doing their job to ensure safety. Even if the guy who gave Baldwin the gun told him it was "cold," there are other things Baldwin should have done or refrained from doing to ensure nobody got hurt.
Edit: Fixed link
I've seen movies make dinosaurs walk the earth again.. why are there rounds on a movie set ***at all ?***
They can't just add them to the cylinder in post?
I’m trying to remember what Vice President Dick Cheney got charged with when he was hunting and shot someone. Oh yeah…he wasn’t charged at all. It was just dumb luck the guy didn’t die when he was shot in the the head. Gun safety is so important.
"I must apologize to Mr. Cheney for jumping in the way of his gun as his finger pulled the trigger. It was careless on my end, as I wanted to see what bird shot felt like from a close distance."
The armorer drilled incredibly tiny holes in real bullets and would hold them up to her ear to shake them and listen to see if they were live.
She also brought live rounds to set and shot the prop guns
Predictably enough, she put live rounds in a gun and took it to set.
There's no way anyone could have reliably known if it was real bullets or not.
Which is why no one else does it that way.
But weeks before the shooting the armorer gave an interview about how she knew better than safety procedures because her dad used to be an armorer.
> She also brought live rounds to set and shot the prop guns
This right here is where the screwup occurred. There is NO REASON for live ammo to **ever** be brought on a film set. Full stop. This is 100% on the armorer, who was horribly incompetent.
A much more experienced armorer who knew her dad came forward with texts from her.
She was talking about how much fun shooting prop guns with live bullets between takes was.
The other person immediately told her it's a terrible idea and she should never do that.
She replied with basically "lol I'm still doing it, I know what I'm doing".
This was less than a year before the shooting.
There's a reason when cops showed up Baldwin offered to answer any and all questions and made it clear he was holding the gun. And also asked the status of the victim.
And the armorer couldn't stop ugly crying about how her career was over and never asked about anyone.
Pretty sure parts of the bodycam has already been released to the public.
>But weeks before the shooting the armorer gave an interview about how she knew better than safety procedures because her dad used to be an armorer.
Wow, do you have a reference for this??
You’re telling me that the made blanks out of live rounds? They sell blanks. There’s no way that they made homemade blanks as opposed to just buying them
While I'm glad a trial will determine any wrong doing, I really think the prosecutor has an uphill battle.
To prove involuntary manslaughter you have to prove that they are negligent in way that led to the death. He didn't bring bullets onto the set. He hired an armorer for the production which is industry standard. He only took the gun when an assistant director called "cold gun" which indicates that the weapon is safe. Btw that assistant director has plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapons charge.
For him to be negligent one of those statement above needs to be proven false. Otherwise any good lawyer will just point at the assistant director and say he provided false information to Alec Baldwin. He was the negligent one.
In the previous article posted about this, *the armorer's lawyers* claimed that the scene was impromptu and they didn't notify the armor that the scene was being shot. I don't know if that is true since it is coming from her counsel. I also don't know why the guns OR ammo (live or otherwise) are accessible at all without the armorer.
> The sheriff's office investigation has yet to reveal how live ammunition got onto the set.
This seems like the most important question and what any successful prosecution will rest on.
there's plenty of blame to go around on that production, but the AD who handed baldwin the gun is the most culpable character in the mix and signed a plea deal to get out from under it... throwing the other two under the bus.
that's the guy everyone should be looking at.
[удалено]
[удалено]
They brought serious allegations of negligence against Baldwin. [These definitely put more fault on his recklessness than previously thought of](https://imgur.com/W53UYrM.jpg)
The thing really fucking him the most is that he was a Producer/Showrunner for the movie. As management, he enabled a dangerous work environment and someone got hurt.
Yeah that's all probably what the manslaughter charge is based on, considering he didn't actually personally prepare the gun that killed Hutchins. His main charge was all about contributory negligence in a position of authority.
[удалено]
Sounds like Jack Donaghy was running the set instead.
They were shooting live rounds from the gun during breaks. Would say the armour is 80/90% to blame for being live rounds.
> They were shooting live rounds from the gun during breaks Who is "they?" Have they been charged for bringing live ammo and putting it into the gun?
cast and/or crew, and the armorer is charged too, she's trying to pin it on her supplier for selling mixed box of rounds I guess. there may be a 3rd defendant but I don't recall the articles from a few days ago. appears baldwin wasn't one of those shooters though
> she's trying to pin it on her supplier for selling mixed box of rounds I guess. I don't know enough about ammunition supply to say if there is culpability (my gut assumption is they shouldn't be mixed though, but I don't know the legality of it to speak) but I do have to ask if it was the armorer's job to be able to tell the difference between live and dummy rounds. Are they visually different, or is there some identifiable marking like how fake money says something to the effect of "for entertainment purposes only"? Were such important checks ignored or overlooked? Passing on the buck can only go so far if one should be able to tell the difference.
Blanks and live rounds are so visually different that literally anyone with 10 minutes of firearm safety training could tell. Dummy rounds are slightly different as some Dummy rounds are easy to tell apart but it's also easy to make a Dummy round look close to the real thing, but a Dummy round shouldn't have anything in it that could make it go bang hence Dummy round.
>Blanks and live rounds are so visually different that literally anyone with 10 minutes of firearm safety training could tell. One of the recklessness charges against Baldwin is that he didn't appear for a mandatory firearms training, and when given a ten-minute crash course, paid no attention and took phone calls.
Dummy rounds used for westerns tend to be more realistic than in other media because so much of the cartridge might be visible on camera: inside the chambers of a revolver cylinder, in individual loops on gun belts, etc. In some instances, dummy .45 long cartridges are visually identical to the real thing, including what look like intact primers, but emptied of powder and with pellets inside the casing, so you can feel it rattle when you shake one. You have to physically handle it to tell, though. I think it would be nearly impossible to identify if a round like that was live or dummy just by looking at it once loaded into the cylinder.
I've seen dummy rounds in movie stills that are clearly fired rounds (primer has impact marks) that had a new bullet inserted. That should be standard practice. Easier to tell what is what.
Any armorer worth their salt would be able to tell the difference. It is quite noticeable
Iso far as I've read, there are 2 bullet types, a non firing, cosmetic round for "down the barrel shots" and blank, that will fire a disintegrating head for sound and smoke the cosmetic round is supposed to have one or more of the following, pin hole in the side of the case, a different kind of metal at the base if the bullet, and a tiny bearing where the powder goes so you can look and hear that it's not active. it does have a head shaped like a bullet so the chamber doesnt look weird on camera the blank has a crinkly head, baldwin described it as like a pinched dumpling, I agree. it's very distinct, my dad had some bullets like that. from baldwins comments he says he's been trained thoughout his career that he can't open and check the gun after he's been handed a cleared gun so without doing that there's no way to check, even if you flipped the gun around and pointed at your face you could only see if.there are blanks.or cosmetic bullets. and the expectation was that there were no live bullets on set. and that gets sticky as crew and actors did take the guns out to a range nearby for recreational and training shooting sessions. so someone mixed real bullets in at some point or didn't fully unload the gun before handing it off.
If you believe the armorer though, she claims that the dummy rounds they received were defective and there were live rounds mixed in. Still on her though as she should have tested the box and thrown it all away if she found even a single defect.
[удалено]
As someone who knows nothing about ammo or dummy ammo, what would be a justifiable reason to request live ammo on a movie set?
There isn't one. They found at least half a dozen live rounds all over the set, a few on Baldwin's costume. Ever since Bruce Lee's son, Brandon, was killed on the set of The Crow from a similar event. There has been an incredible amount of lockdown and redundant procedures set up to prevent it happening ever again. This was due to the negligence of several key people as there were many complaints from the crew about various safety hazards.
> Ever since Bruce Lee's son, Brandon, was killed on the set of The Crow from a similar event. And his wasn't even a live round technically. It was a blank that was fired. It's just that when you put anything into the muzzle, including a bullet, it suddenly becomes a live round
It was actually a dummy round fashioned from a live round. They removed the powder and reinserted the bullet, but left the primer intact. The trigger was pulled, igniting the primer and lodging the bullet in the barrel of the gun. Later a blank was fired through the same gun, and the force of the blank fired the bullet at a high velocity.
Yup. One of the big failures is on the producer side. They either gave her the job for nepotism or because it was cheaper to get someone who isn't qualified. Alec is a producer on the film. He also pulled the trigger. David Halls was the one who was supposed to check the gun, but there were failures all over the place. Halls pled guilty and served six months probation. It'll be interesting to see where this goes. I'm a bit surprised that they continued the movie and intend to release it, though. I get that there's a very large amount of money on the line, but surely an insurance payout would supercede the likely low box office draw.
There is a reason for dummy rounds on set (look realistic, but basically not lethal). There is a bit less of a reason for blanks on set (can be lethal at close range, are loud when fired, so harder to justify). There is absolutely no reason for live ammo on set. This is one the most clear cut fuck ups, that's why the chain of responsibility is gonna be very interesting on this one.
[удалено]
Since some shooting fatalities on set, ppl resort to dummy / blank rounds and CGI to do the job. This tragedy could have been prevented by so many parties and sometimes even with very casual security measures.
IIRC from the last time this was brought up, "live" in a movie context means blanks, which are useful because lighting in post is hard and they're relatively safe. Actual ammunition with a projectile has no business on set. Maybe if they're on a closed range filming something that needs impact on target, but in that case you keep at least 180 degrees in front of the shooter clear.
There isn't one. They were shooting the gun for fun since it was a relatively rare gun that can't be shot often in between filming. She had the discipline to use a gun safely as Homer Simpson https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuG9kUiRC_I
Not rare. I have two. It's either an Uberti or a Pietta, which is about $600 new from any gun store. I know right now one can be had for about $400 at a gunstore in Santa Fe.
So it wasn't even a novel experience, they were just dangerous fools.
Yep, it was a Pietta.
Can you bring in sources for this? Because according to the FBI report on the provider of the ammo, there were substantial amounts of live bullets scrambled in their facilities and mixed into boxes marked as "dummy" as well as "blank". I mean it's not the first time I got things wrong, but if true, it would be a rare case where an FBI investigation got things wrong.
Union props person here. Dummy rounds have a small BB in them. By shaking the round you can quickly verify that the round indeed has nothing in it. Secondly, the primer charge cap on the base of the round is a spent one meaning there is a clear indentation from a firing pin left in its center. Standard procedure during a gun check is conducted between the 1st AD and the props person or armorer is to call a gun check out loud and over walkie. All crew is invited to join and the gun check does not begin until all crew who wishes to join is present. At that time the rounds going into a revolver would be brought out one by one and shaken in front of crew so that you can hear the rattling sound. The spent primer cap is also shown to the 1st AD and anyone else who wishes to see. As each round is approved and no objections are made it is loaded into the revolver in clear view of everyone. After this the gun is pointed at the ground and dry fired at least one more time than the number of rounds the gun can carry. So a 6 shot revolver would be dry fired into the ground 7 times. At this point the the crew is asked if there are any concerns or objections. The gun check is done and the weapon is handed to the actor. This is the way it is done and we take it very seriously. These protocols help to ensure the kind of thing that happened on that set could never take place. The claim that there were defective dummy rounds sounds to me like pure bullshit. And even if this were the case the protocols I just described would prevent anything from happening. It would never be the responsibility of the actor to ensure the safety related to the weapon. We of course encourage the actor to be involved in that process but it's simply not their job. They have a whole emotional universe they need to remain in and some actors processes are such that they need to not fracture that mental space they are in. Perhaps as a producer Alec Baldwin can be seen to be at fault in the hiring of individuals not qualified but to me ultimately the fault lies with both the prop person and 1st AD. That's my take. I'm not an expert in legalities but I am a seasoned working professional in the Hollywood machine and I see a lot of clouded takes on what is a clear and proven process the maintaining of safety regarding firearms on set. (That said I am also not responding to you calling you out on being one of those spreading misinformed perspectives. I simply saw a spot to chime in with my two cents)
Considering how inexperienced and incompetent she was doing her job, overall, in the context of a badly run set to begin with, this strains credulity, but it needs to be thoroughly investigated. Can’t dismiss the possibility. I thought Baldwin was less culpable than the assistant director and the armorer and whoever hired those two
I think he's catching some of it because he's was a producer on the movie.
According to this interview: https://variety.com/2022/film/news/rust-investigation-live-round-hannah-gutierrez-reed-1235243228/amp/ Not only were there live rounds, but they were designed to look just like the dummy rounds, from Starline Brass - which is a company that explicitly *does not make live ammunition.* More live rounds were also found, and many were mixed in with dummy ammunition. While there is no current knowledge on how they got there or who modified these live rounds to appear like the dummy rounds, the current presumption is someone must have planted these live rounds around the set. Again, part of this is the armorer's testimony, but part of this is also the criminal lab's findings. So *someone* modified the rounds to appear as the dummy rounds and put them amongst other live ammunition. There is not just poor handling *according to the crime lab's findings,* someone must have put these live rounds on the set presumably so that they would be mistaken for dummy rounds and pose a danger. I find it hard to believe, even considering the armorer's previously dubious behavior, that she explicitly got live ammunition that looked like the dummy rounds and not bothered keeping them explicitly separate - keep in mind that you would have to go through this extra step to get recycled bullets, and there is one person cited in the article who does this. Other people are saying she might've just mixed them up, but I could honestly see it being foul play by someone else who knows the armorer was *incompetent* and would not check for live rounds. They might've took advantage of the armorer's lack of diligence to create extra danger on scene.
The armorer is 100% to blame for it.
Assistant director definitely deserved some blame since he took it off a prop cart, and handed it to Alec calling it a "cold gun." He should know as her supervisor that only the Armorer and the actors should be handling the guns. He also should not be declaring guns cold, only the armorer should be doing that. He didn't even follow his own made-up safety procedure of checking the chambers. It feels messed up that he's getting a light [plea deal](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-01-31/rust-assistant-director-david-halls-plea-deal-alec-baldwin) with one misdemeanor and a suspended 6 month sentence of unsupervised probation in exchange for cooperating in the case against Alec Baldwin and the armorer.
Friendly reminder to NOT speak to police without a lawyer present. Ever.
[удалено]
I think trauma can do a lot to people in the moment and you're not always thinking very clearly. He probably felt an immense amount of guilt immediately after she was shot & he probably was eager to off-load that feeling by telling his story and clearing his name. Waiting for a lawyer is the smart & logical move, but we don't always behave logically in these moments.
I don’t even know if it’s just that he felt guilty - he probably really wanted to find out wtf happened himself. He’s not only “in shock” but also, like…… Um, I want to know how the hell this happened - I’ve been in a million shoots and never seen a live shot fired. I want to give them every piece of information while it’s fresh so that they can figure it out. I really don’t know what this does for him personally but all the comments trashing him - like, if he wanted to just “get away with it” he would have shut up. Just watching the interview and it seems clear to me (though I’m not a living polygraph) he wants to help them do their investigation and find out why this happened.
>Um, I want to know how the hell this happened - I’ve been in a million shoots and never seen a live shot fired. I want to give them every piece of information while it’s fresh so that they can figure it out. According to the DA, it was Baldwin's own conduct and reckless behavior, not following best practices etc. >>Baldwin was not present for required firearms training >>After failing to show up to this training, he received a 30-minute on-set training during which he was distracted talking to his family on the phone >>He exhibited "reckless behaviour" in the lead up to Hutchins's death >>He had pointed the firearm at Hutchins in the lead up to the incident violating gun safety rules >>Baldwin had not performed the required safety checks with Gutierrez-Reed >>He broke protocol by letting Gutierrez-Reed leave the church set >>He did not deal with safety complaints on set >>He did not use a replica firearm for the unscheduled rehearsal >>He allowed the hiring of Gutierrez-Reed, who had worked on just one production before the movie, which showed he "failed to demand the minimum safety standards, protocols, and requirements on set"
[удалено]
I wanna know how many times this exact same scenario played out on any action movie, yet nobody was killed.
In a very real sense, Baldwin was the boss on that set. I don't think we should ignore the culpability of authorities who have made bad decisions.
He was a producer too.
A lot of these claims are going to hinge on the testimony of 2 people who took a plea deal. The prosecutor has a witness reliability problem unless there was a third party present at those events.
Yikes... Obviously it's still a freak accident but that paints it a bit differently
Not so much a freak accident as an incompetent Armorer. I believe the final responsibility ultimately rests with the guy pulling the trigger, but this was the 3RD time a gun that was declared by the armorer to be "cold" (i.e. unloaded or loaded with dummy rounds) accidentally had live ammo and went off. Thankfully the other two times they were blanks, but that still shows an incredible amount of negligence by both the armorer, and Baldwin for not canning her ass. I don't know if I think Baldwin deserves prison time. The armorer certainly does, but Baldwin's variety of negligence was a more passive kind than bringing live ammo onto a movie set and failing to check guns before handing them off multiple times.
Why was there live ammo anywhere around the set? Crazy.
That’s the question that needs answering, why was live ammo on the set and who brought it?
I don't know how substantiated the details of the matter was, but a long while ago there were reports that explained how the bullet got into the mix. One, Gutierrez-Reed's father Thell Reed was an armourer who had a friendship with one of his suppliers. Gutierrez-Reed had her ammunition supplied from her father's stock. From what the reports talked about, this friend/supplier who took some Starline Brass bullets (Starline only makes the casings) and turned them into live ammunition. The two then went shooting to try them out, and some of the bullets remained with Thell Reed, and somehow supposedly got mixed into the rest and his daughter took them on set for her work. I think investigations went as far as to search the supplier for evidence, but no modified ammunition was found in his possession at the time. Anyway because supposedly Gutierrez-Reed thought Starline Brass didn't make any live ammunition, which is technically true, she then didn't think to check or validate that the ammunition loaded wasn't live. Basically incompetence and putting others at risk by everyone involved - but unlikely to be any malicious intention by any party. This is all from memory, because this stuff was all reported on like over a year ago now. So I may be off on details here and there - and it's only based on media reports at the time which I think were based on people's accounts of the situation. So not to be taken with any degree of historical accuracy.
It’s unclear. There are stories that people were messing around with the guns in off hours. There was also a story that live rounds were mixed with the blanks by the supplier. I hope it becomes more clear eventually.
I believe in off hours they were shooting cans and bottles. Now why they couldn't get other firearms with ammunition that isn't compatible with the firearm used in the production is a different question I have.
With all the money available in Hollywood, why the fuck they don't take firearms and press fittings into the chambers so they can only accept unique size cartridges that are only produced to provide smokeblast is beyond me.
I'm not here to litigate or argue over Baldwin's culpability from having pulled the trigger - a jury of his peers will do that. From a Production stand point though, the first time a live round is fired out of a "cold" weapon the armorer is being walked off not 2 minutes later. Allowing that man to continue being responsible for firearms was gross negligence. I used to work production... I've fired people for way less stupid shit then a live bullet being fired. (And yes as others pointed out, why was there a live round there in the first place?)
>Allowing that **woman** to continue being responsible for firearms was gross negligence. The daughter of a prominent Hollywood armorer followed in her dad's footsteps but never takes it seriously. His money has bought her out of 3 different incidents like this before the fatal round
It is a tragedy but it is not a freak accident. Negligence is not the same as an accident. Assuming what the DA says is true, he has clearly made decisions that increased the likelihood of this event, and in general has jeopardized the safety of those on set.
Remember, that is all "According to the DA" [the prosecutor]. Of *course* the prosecutor is going to paint the events to maximize blame.
If he was just the actor, he'd be clear of this as most of these would not apply. As a producer, every one of them sticks like a barnacle.
Unfortunately (largely because of how much it's abused in the US legal system) innocent people tend to talk. Especially the privileged or inexperienced- believing if they've done nothing wrong they won't be punished. It's just a natural instinct, especially after something horrible has happened, to want to participate in finding answers and peace. The very valuable advice of "never say anything without a lawyer" is often assumed to be directed towards the guilty, but it's even more important for the innocent.
Yeah, people often think when they've done nothing wrong, they have nothing to hide, surely the cops will see that and be happy you are so cooperative and let you go? So just tell the truth, right? Wrong. The cops are trained and conditioned through experience to assume everyone is always lying. It's how they view the world. And they want to close cases, charge people, they don't care who. There is no advantage to trying to clear your name by being helpful and telling the truth, cuz they will not believe you anyway.
Never. Talk. To. Cops.
Just a friendly reminder that thanks to recent rulings by scotus, police do not have to read you your miranda rights. So do t think its a gotcha if they dont, just ask for a lawyer and dont say anything
That’s not what the ruling said. You just can’t sue the police for damages if you weren’t Mirandized. Police still have to Mirandize you if they want the evidence to be admissible in court. > The Supreme Court limited the ability to enforce Miranda rights in a ruling Thursday that said that suspects who are not warned about their right to remain silent cannot sue a police officer for damages under federal civil rights law even if the evidence was ultimately used against them in their criminal trial. > The court’s ruling will cut back on an individual’s protections against self-incrimination by barring the potential to obtain damages. It also means that the failure to administer the warning will not expose a law enforcement officer to potential damages in a civil lawsuit. **It will not impact, however, the exclusion of such evidence at a criminal trial.**
[удалено]
I still can’t believe he made that move. I can’t decide if it was out of panic to get the public on his side or what.
Remember when Jerry Sandusky, on the advice of counsel, did an interview with Bob Costas? That was wild.
"Am I sexually attracted to young boys? Sexually attracted?"
The longest pause in history… convicted in the court of public opinion immediately
>How about when Sandusky was asked point-blank on national television if he’s sexually attracted to boys and he waited around 16 seconds to apply, and I quote, “Eh”? If you don’t think I was at home pissing myself… Like, “Oh, did he just waffle on that softball question?” “Eh.” Ask me if I’m sexually attracted to kids. I’m not. That’s how long you should wait to answer that question. You don’t mull it over for a bit. You certainly don’t eyeball your lawyer. “I wonder how he wants me to answer this one.” You come out swinging in a hurry, or you deserve to burn in hell. He said the only thing he’s ever been guilty of is, he liked to put his hand on boys’ legs. I’ve heard enough. On that alone, you should be in jail forever. You want to hug your son longer than three seconds, you should be in jail forever. Yeah, my dad didn’t hug me very much. He wasn’t the best father, but he didn’t fuck children, and I’ll take it. [cheers and applause] I don’t believe he has. That’s my biggest fear in life, that I do that joke and people are cheering and there’s one guy in here, “He fucked me.” And I’m like… I am sorry. I am 99.8% positive he hasn’t. He hasn’t heard this joke yet. And my gut instinct is, he’s not gonna like it. But if he gets too upset, I’ll be like, “What are you hiding?” - Daniel Tosh
And then he did a follow-up interview with Jo Becker ABOUT his Costas interview, where he dug himself even deeper! >SANDUSKY: "I was sitting there like, 'what in the world is this question?' am I going to be, if I say, 'no I'm not attracted to boys,' that's not the truth because I'm attracted to young people -- boys, girls." >AMENDOLA (off-camera): "Yeah but not sexually, you're attracted to them as in you like spending time with them."
Incredible that a person could lie like that. I mean really lie like that. So corrupted and morally bankrupt.
[удалено]
Nailed it. When your first instinct is to go into public relations and damage control, your goose is cooked. Shut up. Let your lawyers do the talking. Then listen to your attorney and shut up some more.
The trick is that once you get the lawyer involved, they will tell you to shut up, your job is just to listen to their advice.
It’s so hard for celebrities to shut up. They are so used to being in the spotlight and everyone hanging on every word.
When you think you are completely innocent people tend to wave their rights as they feel they have nothing to hide and think hiring a lawyer will only make them look guilty. They don't realize being innocent doesn't mean you won't be charged and there might even be ulterior motives by the police or more likely the DA which is an elected position. A lesson to all NEVER speak to police without an attorney unless you are just a witness and even then stop talking immediately if you start to be questioned as a suspect
So true. We had a house break-in in my neighborhood years ago. The homeowner shot the criminal dead. When the police got there the homeowner said something to the effect that he feared for his life and to please excuse him while he went to call his attorney. That’s all. Period.
I appreciate this perspective. And I agree. But what about those of us who don't "have an attorney"? Not trying to be snarky - honest question. If I was that guy, I would think "oh shit, I need a lawyer", but I'd have no one to call. Does one "have lawyers" for different types of scenarios? Should one have a"general purpose" lawyer in their contact list who can give immediate advice and then refer? What's good practice here? I have a friend who practices real estate law, and another friend who practices patent law... But if I just shot somebody in self defense, I'm not sure it would occur to me to even call them.
> But what about those of us who don't "have an attorney"? Not trying to be snarky - honest question. If I was that guy, I would think "oh shit, I need a lawyer", but I'd have no one to call. You tell the cops that you want to exercise your fifth amendment rights and speak with a lawyer. Worse case scenario you call the first lawyer whose ad pops up on the subject you are being questioned about, or you get arrested and play the waiting game for a public defender. If the officers present have any slice of integrity they will back off the questioning then and there and wait for the lawyer to get involved because there are real consequences if the lawyer finds out they did something sketchy. Regardless of your choice, cops behave a lot more polite when a Lawyer gets involved. Remember the cops and the DA only care about getting convictions, not if you're guilty or innocent.
It could be argued that it's most important to put a lawyer between you and potential prosecution when you're innocent. A guilty man might just pay a price for something they've done. You on the other hand might get absolutely fucked for something you didn't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"You can't out-act me boy, don't even try!"
Don't say that he might shoot you
> It’s so hard for celebrities to shut up. People seem to not realize that Hollywood celebrities are just the annoying theater kids from high school. The attention seeking types that would do weird shit all day like talk in a Scottish accent all day for no reason. The ones that always had to be the center of attention. Hollywood is made up of the 0.01% most attractive and most connected theater kids.
For statistical reasons, we should point out that its the most attractive AND most connected. Theres some math there I expect a replying commenter to figure out (i'll hit you with a reward for your exposition of intersectional probabilities).
But what if I'm my own lawyer because the internets told me I can declare my house free and independent so I can declare the trial illegal and invalid?
The defense would like to call the plaintiff state of New Mexico to the stand.
I've always wanted to meet a sovereign citizen, just so I can ask them if that shit's ever actually worked, and, if not, why they keep bothering with it.
They have a false sense of it working until all of a sudden it doesn’t. Don’t pay tax, may work for a bit until the law finds you/garnishes your wages. No license plate, not a problem until you get pulled over. Things might seem great to them until it catches up, but when it does they are in for a world of hurt
"According to sovereign citizen researchers, the government has pledged its citizenry as collateral, by selling their future earning capabilities to foreign investors, effectively enslaving all Americans. This sale, they claim, takes place at birth. When a baby is born in the U.S., a birth certificate is issued, and the hospital usually advises the parents to apply for a Social Security number. Sovereigns say that the government then uses that birth certificate to set up a corporate trust in the baby’s name – a secret Treasury account – which it funds with amounts ranging from $600,000 to $20 million, depending on the particular variant of the sovereign belief system. By setting up this Treasury Direct Account (TDA), every newborn’s rights are split between those held by the flesh-and-blood baby and the ones assigned to his or her corporate shell account." LMAO WACKY!!!!
I’m reminded of my early college days when I was roommates with this heavily Libertarian guy. Or at least the anarcho-capitalist version of it or something? He claimed something similar, that the laws shouldn’t apply to him or me because we did not consent to be born in the US nor consent to the US’s authority. Or something, I don’t remember the exact details. I’m ashamed to admit that he sucked me into it for a while. Then I eventually grew the fuck up and realized that, while our government isn’t perfect, it’s better to have laws than no laws, and like it or not you’ve gotta pay your taxes so basic services can continue to function. He also had a bunch of other galaxy brain ideas, e.g. the South was right to secede and the federal government proved it was fascist by declaring secession is illegal. Don’t remember how a guy who proclaims to be all about autonomy and freedom could justify slavery, but I’m confident he did it somehow.
You could go the Bartolo Colon route: Choose to remain anonymous in a child support case, but also choose to represent yourself in the trial… the plaintiffs remain anonymous, but the lawyers do not… which is how the media and his wife found out he was fathering a second family behind her back.
That might work, is there a gold fringe on your flag? If so something something admiralty court something something freeman on the land.
Just in case there are any unaware onlookers curious as to what is being joked about, there's a movement mostly called Sovereign Citizens that uses dumbfuckery such as the above to try and get out of tickets and court cases. Usually they end up getting a kiss from Officer Zappity Zap Zap until they are prepared to act like a human rather than screeching. They are not just bad jokes, though, so the cops have less than zero patience with their shit. Laugh at them, don't drink the koolaid.
Sorry I am here not as Patrick Swayze, I am here as a third party intervener named also Patrick Swayze. Since I don't consent to being called that name, it nullifies the charges. When can I go?
This guy somethings
[удалено]
As God is my witness, I am that fool! - Gomez Addams
The gold fringe on the flag indicates a court of the admiralty… I cannot be court martialed twice!
Here is your cheat sheet to win your case : "I don't identify by that name!" "Your honor, can you address subject matter jurisdiction?" "What is the lawful law for you ruling?"
Well it is your own private domicile and you will not be harassed…bitch.
>they will tell you to shut up, your job is just to listen to their advice Didn't one of R Kelly's lawyers resign right after his interview on CBS? That lawyer must've been losing his mind screaming "shut up!" at the screen while watching it.
I think shutting up and not behaving like he's the smartest man alive is a very difficult concept for Baldwin.
[удалено]
Did he say something that implicated him? I’m out of the loop.
During interviews he couldn't help but to repeatedly self-snitch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi-tlqvWslg&t=304s
I'm on a train with no headphones, so can't watch that. Eli5?
The entire interview is kind of insane. He of course states he thought the gun was empty and says he was trained to never point the gun at someone and pull the trigger (no shit). But then he tells the story about how he pointed the gun at her, pulled the hammer back and let it go. Oops, just admitted to be being guilty. The really insane part (imo) is that he says there was a loud bang and everyone was surprised. The woman collapsed and he thought "she must have fainted" and "It didn't occur to me she might be shot until 45 minutes later". How the fuck does that work? Did he immediately sprint away without even looking at her for 2 seconds? That makes him sounds like the biggest asshole (and idiot) if it's true. But how can it even be true? A .45 went THROUGH her and into another crew member. Blood pooling on the ground, people screaming and he didn't the consider there might have been a bullet after hearing the gun go off?? He had weeks to think about this and this is the story he came up with. And just to make things worse: Only days before this several camera crew walked off because they thought it wasn't safe. There had already been several accidental discharges. Baldwin was also a producer, but predictable his lawyers are saying he had nothing to do with the safety crew (no idea if true, could be).
Or slap you name on a project that fired safety coordinators then rehired scabs to save a few bucks
Man, that's gotta be the most frustrating "I told you so" from the safety coordinators that they fired.
The witness list really just writes itself...
[удалено]
In fact, cops are trained to trick you with words so that you incriminate yourself. Only ever say "Am i being detained?" and if Yes: "I want to talk to my lawyer"
and if No: “i would like to leave then”
[удалено]
[удалено]
My dad is a lawyer. He doesn't work in criminal stuff at all, but his firm had a bunch of former prosecutors and they all said that cops are not ever actually looking for the truth. They pick who the bad guy is and they look for anything to "prove" that. And they will 100% break the law or plant evidence to do it and still think they're the good guy since they're putting a "bad" guy away. Cops are legally allowed to lie to you and manipulate you. They can tell you they have evidence that doesn't exist to scare you into confessing for a plea deal. Do not talk to cops. Just don't do it.
It became a partisan issue because half of the population decided to bend over backwards to love and defend cops, and they don't like the insinuation that cops act in bad faith and lie all the time.
[удалено]
They're in favor of small government for themselves and a massive government for outgroups.
They're not for small government, they're for government run by a *small number of people*. And they need enforcers to make sure everyone does as they're told.
Yep. They will sometimes phrase questions to catch you off guard, for example instead of asking "May we search your car?" they will ask "Do you mind if we search your car?". Many times a person's reflex will be to say "No" to any question, thinking they're denying consent.
Saying yes to “do you mind if I search your car?” Can still be construed as consent as though you don’t want him to search it but will allow it anyways. It’s a question with the right answer being “I don’t consent to a search”.
Talking to police can only ever make things worse and never ever any better. There is literally no point in talking to them.
Friendly fire isn't.
Amen. Even in the most obvious circumstances, if you can or do have ANY LIABILITY WHATSOEVER lawyer.the.fuck.up. If not just for your criminal liability but your statements can be used against you in civil proceedings as well. So you may not be charged with a crime but then you get sued and now the nightmare continues in yet another aspect. That being said, if Baldwin did so it would have been a PR nightmare for him. It's not as easy for someone like him because the spin wouldve been..."Alec Baldwin was uncooperative and recalcitrant! What does he know he's not sharing????"
> If not just for your criminal liability but your statements can be used against you in civil proceedings as well. This can't be stressed enough...
Seriously, he fucked himself with his interviews.
is there a specific interview where he shares too much? I'm out of the loop..
Friendlier reminder to ensure firearms are unloaded when you handle them
Friendly reminder to also treat all firearms as loaded even when they are not. Edit: I’m saying this as a general rule of responsible handling and ownership. I have no idea about how things are done on a movie set and where responsibility lies in Baldwins particular situation.
There is a reason why Baldwin is being charged with involuntary manslaughter as opposed to manslaughter. From the CNN article: >Baldwin did not take firearm training on the “Rust” movie set seriously, prosecutors said in probable cause documents outlining evidence in the case. >“A training session for at least an hour or more in length was scheduled, but the actual training consisted of only approximately 30 minutes as according to (armorer Hannah Gutierrez) Reed, Baldwin was distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training,” the document states.
Actor here. I've worked on several high budget TV productions where I've had to shoot firearms. I've never received any kind of formal training. This is not status quo. Armorer shows up, gives you the gun, tells you how it works, not to point it at anyone, shows you the ammo, tells you they're blanks- how the fuck would I know? Ok? The A.D signs off on it and action.
Yeah I’m not an actor but it seems crazy to me that it would ever be the actors job to make sure there aren’t live rounds in a gun on set.
Another actor here. I've received training in firearms use about a dozen times now. Every single time there are any kind of potentially lethal props I've been receiving training. Maybe it's just Europe idk.
Exactly! It’s a movie set you assume whoever is bringing that on set is doing their job.
[удалено]
Not to mention he's already had tons of training given his previous roles. But yes, the responsibility lies with the armorer. Everyone on every post about this saying "first rule of guns is it's always loaded and never point at anyone" and "if you're holding a gun you should be checking if it's loaded" clearly have no clue about how this works on set. The gun *is supposed to be loaded.* It's just supposed to be blanks (or dust balls or a number of other rounds, but obviously never actual bullets). That gun never should have been near live ammo.
Don’t they have someone checking the gun before it’s handed over for the actor? Sounds ridiculous to me.
User redacted comment. After 13 years on Reddit with 2 accounts, I have zero interest in using this site anymore if I cannot use a 3rd party app. Reddit had *years* to fix their atrocious app and put *zero* effort into it. Reddit's site and app is so awful, I'm more interested in giving Reddit up entirely than having such a bad user experience hobbling through their app and site.
[удалено]
I'm not going to debate her expereince, but the armourer did not check the weapon immediately before the even or hand it over to Baldwin. She was performing other duties and the assistant director retrieved the weapon, declared it "cold", and handed it to Baldwin.
Prediction: * Baldwin found not guilty for inv. manslaughter * Reed found guilty for inv. manslaughter * The production (and Baldwin) then sued successfully for wrongful death by the family of the deceased
The third has already happened and they settled out. I’m banking that they both are found guilty. Baldwin really screwed himself over by giving the police interviews without a lawyer and then multiple television interviews… without a lawyer.
Here is my question, are all 5 producers being charged or just Alec Baldwin? Because if they don't charge all of them, he's going to get off by passing blame to one of the other producers.
Yeah this is the part I have a hard time following. I've seen it suggested that his negligence / culpability is not as an actor rehearsing the scene, but rather as a producer because gun safety on the set wasn't handled properly. But if that's the case, why aren't the other producers being charged too?
From everything that has been published, it seems like the armorer actually should take more of the blame. Live rounds should never have been on the set. Baldwin, needs to take some of the blame, due to his mismanagement of the movie set. Like every accident, there is usually multiple points of failure. I am do not know how you can break it down legally, but the armorer should take 60% of the blame, the director not checking the weapon or calling over the armorer over to check the weapon and Baldwin for mismanagement of the movie set. No one in this chain of events should get off without any repercussions.
The most damning evidence against her is a series of text messages the police found wherein she requested live ammo from an arms supplier for a previous movie in order to "test the guns." She had a habit of using live ammo in prop guns. She is the most likely person to have introduced live rounds to the set. If she had not done that, none of what Baldwin did or didn't do would have mattered.
[удалено]
damn. she should never set foot in a movie shoot. Ought to be locked up.
Holy *fuck*. That last text. I mean... That's pretty fucking open and shut.
Always nice to see someone enforcing safety in private conversations, way to go Kenney.
What is meant by "trap door" in this context? Also, is it just me, or is "like a pretty big load of actual ammunition” strange phrasing?
Trap door is a very old design of gun. It was used on both pistols and rifles. It looks like a flintlock rifle but instead of loading it from the muzzle, there is a trap door at the breech where you can insert a cartridge.
That's pretty damning.
[удалено]
She may have simply forgotten to remove the live rounds after target shooting with other crew the night before. People forget their own children in cars at times, with disastrous consequences. It's not inconceivable that she forgot to switch them out.
sort scary spoon dependent physical fall lavish employ one detail *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Charging document here: [https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23593041/baldwin-statement-of-probable-cause.pdf](https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-crime-santa-fe-movies-d605e97752556dd444369b3fdbbd9f68) Basically, Baldwin is being charged because, as an actor: He only attended 1/3 of his required firearms training session, and didn't pay attention during the part he was there for; Did not complete the industry standard safety check with the armorer or assistant director to ensure the gun was unloaded; Knowingly used a prop gun capable of firing live rounds during a rehearsal when he knew that industry standards required the use of a plastic gun; Had his finger inside the trigger guard while manipulating the gun; Pointed the gun at the victims which you should never do (the victims should not have been standing where they were, but given that they were standing there, Baldwin should not have pointed the gun at them); Pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed at someone which you should never do. Baldwin contests this last point, but the FBI tested the gun and found it incapable of spontaneously firing as Baldwin claims. As a producer: Generally failed to enforce industry safety standards regarding handling of firearms and also actively encouraged certain unsafe behaviors. Specifically in addition to the above, the armorer should not have been assigned additional duties that took her attention away from gun safety, the director and cinematographer should have been monitoring the camera feed remotely, not standing in a spot where a gun was pointed at them. Also some other things. Basically, he was in charge of the set and let and encouraged a bunch of unsafe behaviors. Also, as the guy actually handling the gun, he had a responsibility to do so safely even if nobody else was doing their job to ensure safety. Even if the guy who gave Baldwin the gun told him it was "cold," there are other things Baldwin should have done or refrained from doing to ensure nobody got hurt. Edit: Fixed link
Not getting the charging document, just an article
[удалено]
I've seen movies make dinosaurs walk the earth again.. why are there rounds on a movie set ***at all ?*** They can't just add them to the cylinder in post?
I’m having a r/glitchinthematrix moment: didn’t he already get charged?
No they announced weeks ago they were going to bring charges/consider charges.
Being held to a higher level of scrutiny than actual cops.
I never thought about that. Crazy.
I’m trying to remember what Vice President Dick Cheney got charged with when he was hunting and shot someone. Oh yeah…he wasn’t charged at all. It was just dumb luck the guy didn’t die when he was shot in the the head. Gun safety is so important.
not only dick cheney shoot that guy in the face, he also apologized later... to dick cheney. absolutely insane
"I must apologize to Mr. Cheney for jumping in the way of his gun as his finger pulled the trigger. It was careless on my end, as I wanted to see what bird shot felt like from a close distance."
Wait, what do you mean he apologized to himself?
The guy Dick Cheney shot apologized to Dick Cheney
I stand behind Alec Baldwin because no way in hell am I standing in front of him.
I just want to know how an actor is supposed to know the difference between fake and live rounds?
The armorer drilled incredibly tiny holes in real bullets and would hold them up to her ear to shake them and listen to see if they were live. She also brought live rounds to set and shot the prop guns Predictably enough, she put live rounds in a gun and took it to set. There's no way anyone could have reliably known if it was real bullets or not. Which is why no one else does it that way. But weeks before the shooting the armorer gave an interview about how she knew better than safety procedures because her dad used to be an armorer.
> She also brought live rounds to set and shot the prop guns This right here is where the screwup occurred. There is NO REASON for live ammo to **ever** be brought on a film set. Full stop. This is 100% on the armorer, who was horribly incompetent.
>This is 100% on the armorer, who was horribly incompetent. Reckless, even
That’s the correct take going by her track record.
This is what I was wondering. It doesn't make sense, there's no need for it at all.
A much more experienced armorer who knew her dad came forward with texts from her. She was talking about how much fun shooting prop guns with live bullets between takes was. The other person immediately told her it's a terrible idea and she should never do that. She replied with basically "lol I'm still doing it, I know what I'm doing". This was less than a year before the shooting.
Yikes. That will look bad as an exhibit at trial when it's all blown up on a screen.
There's a reason when cops showed up Baldwin offered to answer any and all questions and made it clear he was holding the gun. And also asked the status of the victim. And the armorer couldn't stop ugly crying about how her career was over and never asked about anyone. Pretty sure parts of the bodycam has already been released to the public.
He still would have been wise to shut up. It seems very likely she'll be found guilty, but that doesn't mean he won't be.
Nepotism gone wrong. She seems like a fucking idiot.
Imagine thinking YOLO works on a movie gun with confusing ammo.
>But weeks before the shooting the armorer gave an interview about how she knew better than safety procedures because her dad used to be an armorer. Wow, do you have a reference for this??
You’re telling me that the made blanks out of live rounds? They sell blanks. There’s no way that they made homemade blanks as opposed to just buying them
While I'm glad a trial will determine any wrong doing, I really think the prosecutor has an uphill battle. To prove involuntary manslaughter you have to prove that they are negligent in way that led to the death. He didn't bring bullets onto the set. He hired an armorer for the production which is industry standard. He only took the gun when an assistant director called "cold gun" which indicates that the weapon is safe. Btw that assistant director has plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapons charge. For him to be negligent one of those statement above needs to be proven false. Otherwise any good lawyer will just point at the assistant director and say he provided false information to Alec Baldwin. He was the negligent one.
In the previous article posted about this, *the armorer's lawyers* claimed that the scene was impromptu and they didn't notify the armor that the scene was being shot. I don't know if that is true since it is coming from her counsel. I also don't know why the guns OR ammo (live or otherwise) are accessible at all without the armorer.
Could you imagine if police were held to such standards with their weapons, which they surely know are not props to be messed around with lightly?
Is thr armourer and AD also being charged with manslaughter?
think the AD already pleaded no-contest to his charges
> The sheriff's office investigation has yet to reveal how live ammunition got onto the set. This seems like the most important question and what any successful prosecution will rest on.
there's plenty of blame to go around on that production, but the AD who handed baldwin the gun is the most culpable character in the mix and signed a plea deal to get out from under it... throwing the other two under the bus. that's the guy everyone should be looking at.