Toby Dramit

Agreed. There are 2 people responsible for this, IMO. The person who loaded the bullet into the gun and the weapons expert / armorer whose job it was to make sure the weapon was safe to use. Unless Baldwin placed the bullet inside the gun himself, I don't see how he can be held responsible for this. But then again, I'm not a State District Attorney.

Goonies85

You two said it. Completely agree. And well said, Toby Dramit.

Goonies85

Which is fine, it still doesn't explain what his day to day responsibilities were, and I don't understand how he's somehow responsible for what the gun armorer on a set would normally do. So if there were safety issues on the set, which has been widely reported, then the production (including him) is probably guilty of something like "gross negligence, but I don't see how he personally should be charged with "involuntary manslaughter"...isn't that a reach? No disrespect intended...

EDIT: Nevermind, no need to reply. I read the previous page and saw that several others made the same point I did when it comes to "producing credit"...so that point has been made already...

rennervision

I agree these charges are ridiculous. (And that's coming from a guy who is no fan of Baldwin.) But him lying that he didn't pull the trigger didn't win him any favors. That's not really a way to ingratiate yourself to the investigators.

Decker

Well if the hammer was cocked, then he wouldn’t have to “pull” the trigger to fire the gun. A little jostle is all it would take.
I’ve yet to hear if the hammer was already pulled back, but that should be obvious one way or another on the raw film footage.

andicus

Didn't they do all their testing on a similar or same model pistol, but not the actual pistol? Or did that change, at some point.

Why So Blu?

It's a slippery slope for sure. Actors cannot be entrusted with prop guns. Common sense dictates that they not be absolved from responsibility of checking the prop gun themselves, as well. Also, a lot of the time these "producer" credits are meaningless and serve to pad a resume. Baldwin isn't a rookie and may have come onboard as producer to make himself look better on this project than it would normally be. You know who is for real? Tom Cruise. As an actor/producer he goes through every single facet of production to make sure he or his cast isn't injured or killed on a dangerous stunt.

Director Lexi Alexander (Punisher War Zone) made some good points on her Twitter account this morning in which she highlights things that happen on set all time -- she does not give Baldwin a pass or the argument of "it was not his responsibility, " etc...

GoldenJCJ

If I recall correctly, Baldwin stated that he pull the hammer back on the gun but didn’t pull the trigger. Some of the video taken of the rehearsal just before Hutchins was shot supposedly shows Baldwin’s finger inside the trigger guard (ie. on the trigger) before the gun went off.

dsa_shea

Did anyone go after those involved in the accidental shooting death of Brandon Lee like what is being attempted here with Baldwin? Again, there is negligence in what happened, but I'm not certain the criminal blame can be placed where some want it placed.

Neil M.

I think there's a major difference between the two cases. With Brandon Lee, I'm not aware of prior safety issues or a crew that walked off the job because of gun safety issues. But even ignoring all that, the fact that one prosecutor decides to not file charges doesn't mean that another prosecutor should do the same if the facts support them. This case hinges on proving what Baldwin knew about these gun issues. With accidental discharges and live ammunition on the set prior to the filming of that day, it's certainly foreseeable that an accident will happen. But did Baldwin know? He'll say no but I bet the crew members who walked off will say yes.

Josh-da-man

There were so many on-set accidents on The Crow that the press was running articles about its production being cursed before Lee was killed.

In the docuseries Cursed Films, actor Michael Berryman claimed that the producers had hired local, non-union armorers to work on the movie because it was filmed in a "right-to-work" state.

And nobody was charged on The Crow. Not Michael Massee (fired the gun that killed Lee), not the producers, not the director, and nobody on the crew. The only differences in the two films is that Alec Baldwin is a lightning rod for controversy and lots of people want to see him punished because of that.

That, and the fact that an actual, liver bullet found its way into the gun on the set of Rust, but I highly doubt Alec Baldwin had anything to do with that particular detail.

Count Dooku

I don't know about that.

Let's think about what we are talking abut here. An incident on Rust, and an incident on The Crow. Two incidents in 30 years strikes me as a pretty fucking good track record for the system for safety that is already in place.
Now, every actor and actress is supposed to become a guns and ammo expert? Checking to see if the clip is loaded? Loaded with live or dummy rounds? And we're not just talking about the star of the movie, everybody who's going to be handling a gun in a scene needs this knowledge, and the time to check their weapons.

The exception proves the rule. The system ain't broke, don't try to fix it.

Runaway

The system works, they just didn't use the the proper steps. So making the actor the last set of eyes is kind of pointless, because it's supposed to be a checked by two people already. If no one checks the gun, there could be a rule, that 20 people should check it and still wouldn't work. I don't know anything about guns and ammo, do blanks actually look different on the outside?

orangerunner

Blanks look like an empty shell whereas a live round has a lead bullet that extends well above the shell. They are extremely difficult to mix-up when loading a gun.

Did they ever announce whether the other five rounds in the gun were blanks or live ammo?

I'm somewhat surprised that the industry uses real guns with blank ammo. Maybe they should adopt replica guns that only fire blank ammo? They do make replica guns that are designed with barrel plugs that are not visible and have a chamber which is designed to only fit specially-sized blank ammo, not real ammo.

Goonies85

I think it was on CNN that some gun expert made this exact point, and showed how sometimes someone will have already depressed the trigger (for whatever reason), and it's still depressed, then they cock the hammer and release it and the gun goes off. He's convinced this is what happened in this case, and feels it explains why Baldwin argues that he didn't "pull" the trigger. He also said that a lot of those "accidental discharges" that go on in households happens because of that...

Nevertheless, it's a stupid case, but I hope that DA is enjoying her time in the limelight...it's not going to last once she becomes a laughing stock in the courtroom...

Count Dooku

I saw an article explaining that the lesser charge has a maximum 18 months in prison and $5000 fine, but the special circumstances charge has a 5 year prison sentence. Since Baldwin has already reached a settlement with Hutchins' family regarding their civil suit, maybe the DA is hoping he will plead to the lesser charge and make a deal that involves no jail time, like the fine plus probation. The DA gets to say they went after the celebrity, and Baldwin avoids the trial and the risk of prison time.

Josh-da-man

They're better off having one firearms expert or a team of firearms experts setting these things up instead of having actors fiddling around with the guns and ammunition. They're probably more likely to cause accidents by having someone messing around with magazines and clips than prevent them.

The nature of film production is that they're going to be using things like firearms and automobiles in unsafe ways that normal people would never do. So, yeah, making a movie where there's a lot of gun play isn't going to be the same thing as going on a hunting trip. The regular rules of safely handling firearms don't apply here where you're simulating things like warfare, shootouts, and murder. So, yes, it's better to have experts setting up the firearms than relying on the actors to do it.

But it probably wouldn't be a bad idea to have the armorer inspect the firearms on-set in front of the actors who will be firing the guns and the actors who are being shot at if it makes them feel safer.

GoldenJCJ

^ Yep. Actors don’t need to be firearms experts to be able to recognize an empty gun or one with blanks in it. The armorer could very easily show the actor the gun is empty or loaded with blanks as he hands it to them.

And honestly, every actor shooting guns should demand that that’s the case, particularly when they’re also having guns shot at them!

Count Dooku

Is that a reasonable safety precaution?

Or, given the statistical likelihood of a live round ending up in a firearm, based on historical data, is it an extraordinary safety measure?

Decker

Whatever happened to the story about crew members firing live rounds in the prop gun during lunch? Was that true? If so where are those criminal charges?

GoldenJCJ

I’m not sure what you’re saying. You’re suggesting that the armorer spending 5 seconds showing the actors the empty gun before handing it to them is an extraordinary safety measure?

GoldenJCJ

I haven’t heard about it lately either but that sounds like the most likely way live rounds ended up scattered throughout all the movie’s guns and ammunition.

Count Dooku

Implementing safety protocols to eliminate the occurrence of something that statistically never happens is extraordinary, not reasonable.

GoldenJCJ

If I’m an actor and you’re going to stick a gun in my face and pull the trigger, it’s beyond reasonable for me to verify the gun is safe.

Count Dooku

That is reasonable --for that extraordinary situation. The heightened risk to your life affords you the right to be extraordinarily cautious.
And in any situation where an actor wants to double check that the gun is "cold," it should happen.
However, it would also be reasonable for an actor to trust that the people tasked with firearm safety have done their job, and presume that the "cold" gun is so.

We're talking about industry-wide policy. Every firearm on every set on every movie.
It is unreasonable to construct a policy for all firearm usage based on the potential danger present in an extreme situation like the one you describe (accident = certain death).

Again, there are already safety protocols in place and, statistically speaking, accidental shootings on movie sets don't occur, so it is reasonable to conclude that no new industry wide safety mandates are necessary.