those who support the 2nd amendment also support and practice gun safety

those who oppose gun rights also dknt practice gun safety

maybe not ban guns from a set but require nra safety courses first. had they dine that alex would have known not to point a gun at someone and would know to keep his finger off the trigger when he isnt ready to shoot

lack of gun safety is gross negligence and leads to death

My thought and practice is that anytime someone hands you a weapon you check it. However, on a set, I doubt this happens with any regularity. I would expect Baldwin to even be able to tell the difference between a live rounds and one of the dummy rounds the industry uses. Baldwin had every expectation to believe the weapon was safe. I don't know the details, but unless live rounds had been used on that set there would be zero reason for him to think it was even a possibility. There is fault here but I doubt it is Baldwin's. And ftr I think he is an ass and we almost came to blows at a friend's house one day

bdp514am said:

---

And ftr I think he is an ass and we almost came to blows at a friend's house one day

---

Story time!

Not much of a story. We were at a mutual friend's house. Zoc had a brief career in the NFL before blowing out his knee, his wife Marnie was a big to do at Capitol records. Zoc somehow made the transition from TE to chef. They knew a wide range of people and liked to entertain so at this event we found ourselves in the company of Mr Alec Baldwin. He was pretty much acting like an arrogant ass the whole time, but what set things off was when he turned to my friend and rather than request, simply ordered her to get her "pretty ass up and go get him another drink" I took exception to that, he took exception to my exception. Words were exchanged, none of them cordial, then shoves, before Zoc stepped in and calmed things down.

HIs downfall will be that the gun wasn't called for or necessary for the rehearsal they were doing. Even so, there was not a call to point the gun at the camera and pull the trigger.

He was stunting for the crew or being an arse to the female director. Given what bdp514am posted about their in person encounter, I would absolutely believe he pointed the gun and deliberately pulled the trigger because he was pissed at the lady.

As such, the "the gun wasn't supposed to be loaded" is a defense for murder but should not be an effective defense for the involuntary manslaughter. Add in his prior knowledge, experience and training regarding guns and in particular guns on a move set, and I think he is in hot water.

Also believe if there was a cush plea deal to be had it would have already been had. But his arrogance will push for total exoneration in an open court. He may be surprised.

Go to 1 hour 56 minute mark for Branca's discussion of this case.



ETA: Go to 2 hour 23 minute mark for video of Baldwin rehearsing right before the shooting. Finger is on the trigger and in the second shot, his finger appears to partially cock the hammer as well.

Interesting video. I understand his position, and of course like that he agreed with me that DA's press release was not really focusing on what needs to be proven. Having said that, at least in that video he never quite got to precisely to the correct legal standard.

Anyhow, it really comes down to two ultimate issues to convict: (1) was Baldwin's reliance on the armorer and failure to personally check (either visually or by dry firing) the gun a "willful disregard" for the safety of others; or (2) was his pointing the gun he thought was non-lethal in the direction of people "willful disregard" for the safety of others. Perhaps one could add pulling the trigger or, more accurately based on the video aggiehawg pointed out, pulling the hammer back with his finger on the trigger to item 2.

I think what's interesting here is the practices on a set are relevant to whether there was willful disregard. They are relevant to whether he perceived a risk and ignored it.

I still have difficulty seeing a conviction. I did watch Baldwin's interview and he said a lot of stupid stuff but not anything that actually reflects willful disregard. In fact just the opposite on state of mind. I look forward to the trial either way. In many ways it will be as interesting as the OJ trial in the sense that the defense team is likely to be stacked with talent (including experts) and resources. And at least based on what I have seen so far the DA will be horribly overmatched.

I certainly hope the armorer does time.

This is a tangent, but this is a bit creepy. I mean yeah, he mentions potato chips, but the "let me give you a back rub ploy" is a sexual innuendo. Weird thing to post about your son and wife.

SoCalAg91 said:

---

Interesting video. I understand his position, and of course like that he agreed with me that DA's press release was not really focusing on what needs to be proven. Having said that, at least in that video he never quite got to precisely to the correct legal standard.

Anyhow, it really comes down to two ultimate issues to convict: (1) was Baldwin's reliance on the armorer and failure to personally check (either visually or by dry firing) the gun a "willful disregard" for the safety of others; or (2) was his pointing the gun he thought was non-lethal in the direction of people "willful disregard" for the safety of others. Perhaps one could add pulling the trigger or, more accurately based on the video aggiehawg pointed out, pulling the hammer back with his finger on the trigger to item 2.

I think what's interesting here is the practices on a set are relevant to whether there was willful disregard. They are relevant to whether he perceived a risk and ignored it.

I still have difficulty seeing a conviction. I did watch Baldwin's interview and he said a lot of stupid stuff but not anything that actually reflects willful disregard. In fact just the opposite on state of mind. I look forward to the trial either way. In many ways it will be as interesting as the OJ trial in the sense that the defense team is likely to be stacked with talent (including experts) and resources. And at least based on what I have seen so far the DA will be horribly overmatched.

I certainly hope the armorer does time.

---

You really are not understanding the law here. Nor questions of fact that a jury decides and then applies the law as instructed by the judge.

Baldwin absolutely can be convicted here. Up to a jury.

SoCalAg91 said:

---

Anyhow, it really comes down to two ultimate issues to convict: (1) was Baldwin's reliance on the armorer and failure to personally check (either visually or by dry firing) the gun a "willful disregard" for the safety of others; or (2) was his pointing the gun he thought was non-lethal in the direction of people "willful disregard" for the safety of others. Perhaps one could add pulling the trigger or, more accurately based on the video aggiehawg pointed out, pulling the hammer back with his finger on the trigger to item 2.

I think what's interesting here is the practices on a set are relevant to whether there was willful disregard. They are relevant to whether he perceived a risk and ignored it.

---

They were 10 days into filming and had already had 3 negligent discharges, 2 involving his stunt double and gun. They were with blanks, but blanks are also deadly at close range, which is why guns loaded with blanks are still treated as if they're loaded. The third negligent discharge involved someone shooting and injuring their foot with a blank round from a gun that was supposed to be safe. There certainly should have been a perceived risk with the frequency of incidents, and after that many in that timespan, it would be asinine to trust the armorer.

There was no reason to pull the trigger in the situation he was in. They were discussing camera angles, which doesn't require dry firing what is assumed as an unloaded weapon

I have stated the law precisely and correctly. I've read the case law, and in addition I am not the only one to point out the legal standard based on New Mexico case law. I am not misunderstanding it, nor do I misapprehend or misunderstand basic criminal court procedures. Bottom line is the jury instruction will contain the phrase "willful disregard," and that requirement will be the intense point of focus for the defense. It is not enough for it to have been stupid, or even really stupid. There has to be some showing of state of mind regarding the risk and a willful dismissal of that risk.

And yes this will go to a jury, and I never said it wouldn't (go back and read my posts). I think the DA can get past a preliminary hearing pretty easily. I just don't see a guilty verdict. You seem to be reading things into my posts that aren't actually there.

My two points in my original post were: (1) the DA had misstated the law either ignorantly or intentionally (absolutely correct); and (2) I can't see a guilty verdict here. On that second point I don't see a guilty verdict because I cannot see a jury finding willful disregard, but reasonable minds can differ on that and time will tell.

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SoCalAg91 said:

---

Anyhow, it really comes down to two ultimate issues to convict: (1) was Baldwin's reliance on the armorer and failure to personally check (either visually or by dry firing) the gun a "willful disregard" for the safety of others; or (2) was his pointing the gun he thought was non-lethal in the direction of people "willful disregard" for the safety of others. Perhaps one could add pulling the trigger or, more accurately based on the video aggiehawg pointed out, pulling the hammer back with his finger on the trigger to item 2.

I think what's interesting here is the practices on a set are relevant to whether there was willful disregard. They are relevant to whether he perceived a risk and ignored it.

---

They were 10 days into filming and had already had 3 negligent discharges, 2 involving his stunt double and gun. They were with blanks, but blanks are also deadly at close range, which is why guns loaded with blanks are still treated as if they're loaded. The third negligent discharge involved someone shooting and injuring their foot with a blank round from a gun that was supposed to be safe. There certainly should have been a perceived risk with the frequency of incidents, and after that many in that timespan, it would be asinine to trust the armorer.

There was no reason to pull the trigger in the situation he was in. They were discussing camera angles,

---

As an actor only, he might have escaped but as a producer doing the hiring?

Not so much.

We all know good and damn well that he's gonna get restitution and a couple years probation.

bdp514am said:

---

Not much of a story. We were at a mutual friend's house. Zoc had a brief career in the NFL before blowing out his knee, his wife Marnie was a big to do at Capitol records. Zoc somehow made the transition from TE to chef. They knew a wide range of people and liked to entertain so at this event we found ourselves in the company of Mr Alec Baldwin. He was pretty much acting like an arrogant ass the whole time, but what set things off was when he turned to my friend and rather than request, simply ordered her to get her "pretty ass up and go get him another drink" I took exception to that, he took exception to my exception. Words were exchanged, none of them cordial, then shoves, before Zoc stepped in and calmed things down.

---

Take this event. The phone calls with his daughter etc. And finally the fact that Baldwin as a producer was fed up with a cinematographer acting like a director. He pointed gun at her, cocked it, and repeatedly said "can you see that" in a loud frustrated tone, then bang!

Baldwin didn't know there was a live round, but he more than likely wanted to shoot at her, and did. Im sure witness testimony and possibly Halyna's husband will be able to confirm they didn't have a great working relationship.

I think if he's convicted he will serve at least some time. Can't see the DA accepting a plea deal for probation. She's locked herself in pretty tight.

I thought this when it first happened but now I don't think that anymore.

SoCalAg91 said:

---

I think if he's convicted he will serve at least some time. Can't see the DA accepting a plea deal for probation. She's locked herself in pretty tight.

---

Plea deal. If he is very lucky, misdemeanor.

He is guilty of a felony though.

Not sure if he was doing hiring. "Producer" is a very loose term and could mean a lot of things. He also has a writing credit though, so in this instance "producer" may mean actual involvement.

Baldwin told the police day of that the propmaster hired the armorer. You're rightproducer can mean anything from running things to just a vehicle to allocate revenue or profits or a vanity title.

I hope it goes to trial. It would be really interesting to see how it plays out.

SoCalAg91 said:

---

I hope it goes to trial. It would be really interesting to see how it plays out.

---

So do I.

Just saw they will resume filming. He is either incredibly dumb or maybe indeed a plea deal is already in the works.

I cannot fathom he would resume filing with trial pending. But he may indeed be just that arrogant.

Shows his utter disregard for the life he took. Disgusting.

fka ftc said:

---

Just saw they will resume filming. He is either incredibly dumb or maybe indeed a plea deal is already in the works.

I cannot fathom he would resume filing with trial pending. But he may indeed be just that arrogant.

Shows his utter disregard for the life he took. Disgusting.

---

I previously posted about this. The resumption of filming was done with the approval and support of the shot woman's family, with her husband now being an executive producer. I'm speculating this was part of a civil settlement.

This was announced a few months ago, with filming due to start at the end of this month I can't really see how it will go forward with criminal chargers and a trial looming.

Wow, surprised that the husband supports but to your point there may be some other considerations. He may also change his tune and more of the story comes out if proceedings… proceed.

Thanks for clarifying.

fka ftc said:

---

Wow, surprised that the husband supports but to your point there may be some other considerations. He may also change his tune and more of the story comes out if proceedings… proceed.

Thanks for clarifying.

---

I just checked online. It looks like there is talk of it STILL going on, but not in NM. Filming would probably resume in California with a completely union crew. Still seems implausible to me. I think the husband has started to change his tone is recent weeks.

I could see continuing with a film if a crew member were killed in an actual accident. Finish the film as a tribute to them. However even disregarding the criminal charges, this whole production was fraught with incompetence and mismanagement due to penny-pinching. The whole thing should be abandoned.

The deceased lady was a young cinematographer on the movie. It was one of her first movies and being a cinematographer on it was a really big deal for her. It wouldn't surprise me at all that her family would want to see the project she was working on to be completed. And they probably believe that is what she would have wanted. It's not unusual. The exec producer credit was reported to be part of the civil settlement and could definitely have a percentage component attached to it. And on the economic side insurance may very well cover some or even all of the costs of the interruption of the production So from the family's standpoint what they have done likely has
an emotional and economic component. Keep in mind that despite the focus on Baldwin as the evildoer and his being attached to the project, he likely was not and is not making many production decisions. And there are a lot of crew, production, working actors, and investors depending on the production.

You may recall a stunt pilot was killed on the first top gun movie (filming the flat spinhe didn't recover the plane). They didn't scrap the movie. They had a dedication to him. If the family consented, that is what would happen here.

Edit: I should add that I am 100 percent certain that most of the people on the project view this as an accident. A terrible and preventable one caused by a series of terrible, cheap, and really stupid decisions and odd events, but an accident nevertheless. No one permanently shuts down a refinery or a production floor when an employee dies, even if it was an accident caused by gross negligence.

This movie shoot was the equivalent of a refinery blowing up and killing dozens of people, with OSHA later discovering neglected maintenance and shoddy safety practices.

To me the best analogy familiar to this board would be the Blue Bell listeria incident. Three dead. Honestly if you know food production it was definitely on the same level. In fact in my view an identical level of gross negligence. Just completely inexcusable. Multiple breakdowns, some heads in the sand, cheaped out on the manufacturing floor, ignored the issue, and people died. But it was fixed (hopefully). (I guess also I will say "in" before someone points out criminal chargesbut the charges were for the cover up, not causing the deaths in the first place).

BP is still pumping gas and if the Deep Horizon platform was salvageable you can bet your bottom dollar they would have moved it, salvaged it, renamed it, reviewed and revised procedures, and stuck a crew back on it. (FYI no individuals charged, company pleaded out and paid criminal fines).

My point is these are all businesses, not morality shops. They didn't just shut down and stop after some very serious mistakes and systemic breakdowns.

In any event, they can clean house on Rust. There is a script and many days of film. Everything else could, conceptually, be replaced. Maybe a few people attached with the power to avoid getting booted. Even the director could go. They may even be able to replace Baldwin, at least as an actor. Who knows who has control. Baldwin may have some control to keep himself attached to it, but I doubt his power is complete, and I doubt he has absolute, final authority on casting . It's very unlikely that it's all his own money (he may have that kind of money, but his manager would never let him 100% fund a project like this). I doubt whoever is in control will do so, but they could even recast him, use whatever salvageable film they have and re-shoot certain scenes. After all, he's not Sam Elliott or something. He's not known for Westerns. Happens alot. So it is possible to complete production and clean house at the same time.

Westerns are notoriously unreliable at the box office. That's why you don't see that many. Name your favorite western and there is usually a story about how it got made because one person had to stick to it and drive it through (Tombstone, Silverado, Unforgiven). Maybe whoever controls the money here closes it down. But it won't be out of guilt or some moral compunction. It's a business like any other business, and there are people across the income spectrum depending on it.

As pointed out in this article from CNN:

Quote:

---

The crew on the set of the movie "Rust" "willfully violated" safety rules and "demonstrated plain indifference to employee safety" which led to the shooting death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, according to a report released Wednesday by New Mexico Environment Department's Occupational Health & Safety Bureau.
Gun safety procedures were not being followed on set, the film's management team knew it and failed to correct it, the report states.
Rust Movie Productions, LLC was fined nearly $137,000 the maximum allowed by New Mexico law and issued the highest-level citation for their actions.
"Our investigation found that this tragic incident never would have happened if Rust Movie Productions, LLC had followed national film industry standards for firearm safety," said Environment Cabinet Secretary James Kenney. "This is a complete failure of the employer to follow recognized national protocols that keep employees safe."

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/20/entertainment/rust-shooting-osha-report/index.html

---

https://www.env.nm.gov/occupational_health_safety/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2022/04/2022-04-19-NM-OSHA-Rust-Summary-of-Investigation.pdf

Interesting read. No mention of Baldwin in the management chain other than in charge of creative
and casting. He assembled the investors but likely had no operational control (typical).

The two misfires of blanks that others have mentioned.

Specific instructions from someone to NOT train Baldwin on firearm handling due to budget.

Still a mystery how live rounds ended up on set, at least in the OSHA report.

I find this comment in para 21 to be an 'opportunity for improvement'

Quote:

---

. While no specific state or federal OSHA standards exist for firearms used in the film industry, it is clear both the employer and the film industry recognized the hazard associated with the use of firearms on movie sets, and the potential for serious injury to employees.

---

Reads much like the conclusions reached in the BP-Texas City Refinery explosion:

Quote:

---

Organizational failings included corporate cost-cutting, a failure to invest in the plant infrastructure, a lack of corporate oversight on both safety culture and major accident prevention programs, a focus on occupational safety and not process safety, a defective management of change process (which allowed the siting of contractor trailers too close to the ISOM process unit), the inadequate training of operators, a lack of competent supervision for start-up operations, poor communications between individuals and departments and the use of outdated and ineffective work procedures which were often not followed. T

---

Difference in my mind is that a replica SAA is much easier for the operator to verify its safe use' than any single employee at a complex refinery.

Your second quoted excerpt also reads a lot like the Packer report on the Bonfire accident.