Alec Baldwin killed a woman on set with prop gun (1 Viewer)

[ghostguy123]

I don't really care what they charge him with, as long as he doesn't see a jail cell.
Not sure he really deserves a felony on his record, though not really sure that would affect an actor/producers career.........if he still has any kind of show biz career that is

Interesting take

Care to explain why you think so? Curious

 

[Jayrod]

This thread is pretty clearly revealing people who have limited to zero firearms knowledge.

Yeah, like 95% of the country.
We do have more guns than people, so that's encouraging,

Probably depends on where you live. I don't know very many people in my area who don't have basic firearms knowledge and almost no one who hasn't handled a gun at least a couple of times in their lives. We had a required gun and hunter safety course for all students when I was growing up in public school.

 

[beer 30]

I don't really care what they charge him with, as long as he doesn't see a jail cell.
Not sure he really deserves a felony on his record, though not really sure that would affect an actor/producers career.........if he still has any kind of show biz career that is

Interesting take

Care to explain why you think so? Curious

Keeping him out of jail at all costs even though he was, at least on the surface, indirectly responsible for the death of another individual just seems like an odd stance before a trial to hear all the facts. Just my

 

[Galileo]

Since Baldwin genuinely feels badly and remorseful, and since the law doesn't allow for an "eye for an eye" in this situation, I see little to no retributive value to the victim's value and society in general for incarcerating Baldwin. Additionally, since Baldwin's own guilt and a felony conviction (which has some serious collateral consequences to them including but not limited to a very likely loss of a right to possess a firearm), will likely specifically deter him from engaging in future actions similar to what happened here. Finally, since these types of crimes don't have a criminal/evil aforethought and, instead, the state should be seeking to just make actors in similar situations more careful, a significantly harsh punishment such as a lengthy jail or prison sentence seems unnecessary here to "scare" others from engaging in similar reckless conduct.

So, if jail time is not an appropriate consequence (which I would be fine with for Baldwin, not so sure about the armorer given what little I know of the details), what is? If the goal would be to "scare" others from being negligent, what is the right amount of consequence to achieve that goal and make others take serious notice? Losing the right to own/posses a firearm? Probation? These seem like an inadequate slap on the wrist. Negligence that leads to death warrants something more significant, in my opinion. What if, instead of a gun, we were talking about vehicular manslaughter due to someone's negligence? Many states attach jail time to that (not necessarily mandatory). What is the difference?

 

[belljr]

So are people hung up since this happened on a movie set?

As if Baldwin was home and grabbed a gun and it accidentally fired and he killed someone would your thoughts be different?

 

[Galileo]

So are people hung up since this happened on a movie set?

As if Baldwin was home and grabbed a gun and it accidentally fired and he killed someone would your thoughts be different?

Well, at home you probably do not have a hired professional whose job it is to make sure the gun is clear/safe. I think this is where the sympathy for Baldwin originates from more than anything.

 

[Zow]

Since Baldwin genuinely feels badly and remorseful, and since the law doesn't allow for an "eye for an eye" in this situation, I see little to no retributive value to the victim's value and society in general for incarcerating Baldwin. Additionally, since Baldwin's own guilt and a felony conviction (which has some serious collateral consequences to them including but not limited to a very likely loss of a right to possess a firearm), will likely specifically deter him from engaging in future actions similar to what happened here. Finally, since these types of crimes don't have a criminal/evil aforethought and, instead, the state should be seeking to just make actors in similar situations more careful, a significantly harsh punishment such as a lengthy jail or prison sentence seems unnecessary here to "scare" others from engaging in similar reckless conduct.

So, if jail time is not an appropriate consequence (which I would be fine with for Baldwin, not so sure about the armorer given what little I know of the details), what is? If the goal would be to "scare" others from being negligent, what is the right amount of consequence to achieve that goal and make others take serious notice? Losing the right to own/posses a firearm? Probation? These seem like an inadequate slap on the wrist. Negligence that leads to death warrants something more significant, in my opinion. What if, instead of a gun, we were talking about vehicular manslaughter due to someone's negligence? Many states attach jail time to that (not necessarily mandatory). What is the difference?

A felony conviction is a far more significant consequence than a "slap on the wrist." Mr. Baldwin would likely lose a significant number of his constitutional rights, he would face significant collateral consequences such as a loss of his gun rights, potential loss of passport and he would likely be required to abstain for alcohol consumption amongst a number of other collateral consequences. Further, he would likely have a probation officer to ensure his compliance, and should he violate the terms of his probation, he would be subject to some summary jail time (as jail time would likely be hanging over his head) as well as the possibility of prison time should be be found by a judge to have violated his probation. Finally, there's just simply the public scarlet letter of him having a felony conviction.

I would agree that this charge could/would carry the possibility of jail time, and it's quite possible here that Baldwin gets some, I just think the situation in this particular case doesn't necessarily call for it. As such, and since all cases carry with them specific and nuanced sets of facts, I'm going to respectfully decline from engaging in a comparison of what different, unique situations.

My comments were not intended to apply to the armorer. I will not make any comments regarding the armorer at any point in this discussion.

 

[Zow]

I don't really care what they charge him with, as long as he doesn't see a jail cell.
Not sure he really deserves a felony on his record, though not really sure that would affect an actor/producers career.........if he still has any kind of show biz career that is

Interesting take

Care to explain why you think so? Curious

Keeping him out of jail at all costs even though he was, at least on the surface, indirectly responsible for the death of another individual just seems like an odd stance before a trial to hear all the facts. Just my

Plea negotiations and thoughts such as these incur in an overwhelming majority of criminal cases. Again, one can disagree with his opinion that jail time is not a necessary outcome here (I don't think he said anything like "at all costs"), but I don't see why you're considering it as some sort of out of left field line of thinking.

 

[beer 30]

I don't really care what they charge him with, as long as he doesn't see a jail cell.
Not sure he really deserves a felony on his record, though not really sure that would affect an actor/producers career.........if he still has any kind of show biz career that is

Interesting take

Care to explain why you think so? Curious

Keeping him out of jail at all costs even though he was, at least on the surface, indirectly responsible for the death of another individual just seems like an odd stance before a trial to hear all the facts. Just my

Plea negotiations and thoughts such as these incur in an overwhelming majority of criminal cases. Again, one can disagree with his opinion that jail time is not a necessary outcome here (I don't think he said anything like "at all costs"), but I don't see why you're considering it as some sort of out of left field line of thinking.

Because I'm not a lawyer and I'm just looking at it on the surface. Appreciate the insight.

 

[Zow]

I don't really care what they charge him with, as long as he doesn't see a jail cell.
Not sure he really deserves a felony on his record, though not really sure that would affect an actor/producers career.........if he still has any kind of show biz career that is

Interesting take

Care to explain why you think so? Curious

Keeping him out of jail at all costs even though he was, at least on the surface, indirectly responsible for the death of another individual just seems like an odd stance before a trial to hear all the facts. Just my

Plea negotiations and thoughts such as these incur in an overwhelming majority of criminal cases. Again, one can disagree with his opinion that jail time is not a necessary outcome here (I don't think he said anything like "at all costs"), but I don't see why you're considering it as some sort of out of left field line of thinking.

Because I'm not a lawyer and I'm just looking at it on the surface. Appreciate the insight.

Putting all legalities aside, do you want to see Baldwin get jail and/or prison time? If so, why?

 

[-fish-]

Why are they using real guns again??

Honestly, from both a legal and human perspective, and as somebody with little to no gun training and/or gun experience, I am surprised to learn that they still use real guns on a movie sets. If I were an actor I would likely decline to use a real gun unless doing so was cost-prohibitive (i.e. I'd lose a 10 million dollar gig or whatever). Using real guns just seems so ripe for a situation such as this one.

But then the actor will have to inspect the gun before using it on set or face prison time, lol. "I thought it was a fake gun, oopsie".
In general, I am not a fan of people going to prison because of a screw up at work, unless they clearly meant to do it. I suppose that's the difference between an accident and a crime.
Example, a nurse giving a wrong med to a patient and killing them. Lose license, sure. Prison???? A forklift drive who forgets to look behind him and backs up into someone. Lose job, sure. Prison??
Now, suing a person/company for damages is entirely different. Sue the hospital who employed the nurse, sure. Sue the company who hired the forklift driver, sure.

1. There is no guarantee or even an initial indication that Baldwin will go to prison for this. Even in my state, which has harsher sentencing ranges for involuntary manslaughter, probation (perhaps with some moderate amount of jail time) would still very much be in play. Further, if I were representing Baldwin (and this happened in my state), I would somewhat expect a plea offer to probation (though probably with a felony conviction).
2. I agree that this is very likely a strong civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is significantly less and the plaintiff would only have to prove negligence.

Her family already settled with Baldwin. They may still have claims against the production company/companies and/or the armorer. Productions like this often have multiple production companies.

In an odd twist, part of the settlement was that they could complete the film and that her widower would become an executive producer.

 

[Nick Vermeil]

if you get handed a potential lethal gun (not a complete prop) you should check it yourself and not rely on anyone else.

Not if you are acting in a movie and there are people hired and trained to do that for you.

Mentalities like this are why people get hurt with guns.

The worst part is, people who think like this are usually the "guns are dangerous we should ban them" set

Not saying joba in particular is anti-gun... unaware of his stance,

I own 3 guns and am very big on gun safety. But this still seems crazy to me, although I admittedly have not been following this story closely. How far do we take this with actors and movie props?

If an actor drives a car for a movie and it has a blowout that results in a crash that kills someone, is he responsible for not checking the tire pressure first? If an actor gets a ray-gun in a sci-fi flick, is he responsible for making sure it doesn't actually shoot death lasers first?

I doubt most actors are trained in gun safety. Isn't that why they literally hire someone whose entire job is to take care of that part of it?

As a gun owner then you know the 4 cardinal rules of gun safety, right?

Tell me something. If someone hands you a gun and tells you it's safe and clear, what's the first thing you do when you take the weapon? YOU CHECK THE WEAPON YOURSELF. Full stop. There are no exceptions to gun safety. Sorry, but any other argument regarding that is ********. I don't care what your occupation is, doesn't matter. You follow the 4 cardinal rules. The car and ray-gun are straw man arguments.

No offense, but I don't know how someone can say they are very big on gun safety in one sentence and then suggest that someone is exempted from the very rules created for gun safety.

If an actor is doing a flying stunt and the rigging fails and the actor falls on the sound guy, killing him, should the actor be responsible? Or just the key rigging grip? This happens a lot actually. See the Spider-Man Broadway play where actors were hurt often. Are they responsible for their own injuries? “Experts” are in place because they are experts. Actors are great at building character but are often morons.

Actors are currently not given the proper training to be responsible for real firearms. (And they shouldn’t be used anyway.) They just aren’t. If you want to charge Baldwin for being a producer who hired an inept armorer, I can see that but as the guy who pulled the trigger in this situation I don’t see it.

 

[beer 30]

Putting all legalities aside, do you want to see Baldwin get jail and/or prison time? If so, why?

This is going to sound all high and mighty but I really want justice to be done. I don't particularly like the man but I watch his movies and enjoy his work. I don't want him to go to jail if that's what's decided. I just look at the loss of human life and think, "shouldn't somebody have to pay for this mistake?" Whether it's him or the armorer, there seems to be enough circumstantial evidence that points to corners being cut and safety protocols being ignored IMO.

 

[AAABatteries]

@Zow or any other lawyer - how much does something being a foreseeable event (which may not be a legal concept) play into the decision to charge and ultimately what the jurors would be making their decision on? Apologies if you've addressed this somewhere in the thread and I missed it.

 

[Zow]

@Zow or any other lawyer - how much does something being a foreseeable event (which may not be a legal concept) play into the decision to charge and ultimately what the jurors would be making their decision on? Apologies if you've addressed this somewhere in the thread and I missed it.

The answer is very technical and depends on the particular/applicable state statute, but, generally, yes, the reasonable foreseeability of the resulted conduct (i.e. that death could occur) is probably a significant factor for a jury to consider.

 

[ghostguy123]

Putting all legalities aside, do you want to see Baldwin get jail and/or prison time? If so, why?

This is going to sound all high and mighty but I really want justice to be done. I don't particularly like the man but I watch his movies and enjoy his work. I don't want him to go to jail if that's what's decided. I just look at the loss of human life and think, "shouldn't somebody have to pay for this mistake?" Whether it's him or the armorer, there seems to be enough circumstantial evidence that points to corners being cut and safety protocols being ignored IMO.

Justice doesn't have to equal jail.
Should someone have to pay for this mistake? Yes, and someone or even multiple people will. That also does not need to be jail time.
I'm all for imprisoning criminals. I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.

 

[ghostguy123]

I guess that's another question to ask cause I don't know.
Was anything illegal done? Had the bullet not hit anyone and just ended up in the dirt, would anything that happened be considered illegal??

 

[-fish-]

I guess that's another question to ask cause I don't know.
Was anything illegal done? Had the bullet not hit anyone and just ended up in the dirt, would anything that happened be considered illegal??

Criminal negligence at the least.

I've been thinking about whether he and/or the armorer deserve jail time. The cinematographer that was killed was 42. She was just becoming successful. They had an obligation to protect her and everyone else on set, especially since having actual guns on set is pretty unnecessary. They screwed up in about half a dozen ways (including the fact that when there's a live gun on set there's supposed to be a shield in front of the film crew). Her death was completely preventable.

If it was my family I'd want to see some jail time for those responsible.

 

[Hot Diggity Dog]

I guess that's another question to ask cause I don't know.
Was anything illegal done? Had the bullet not hit anyone and just ended up in the dirt, would anything that happened be considered illegal??

Criminal negligence at the least.

I've been thinking about whether he and/or the armorer deserve jail time. The cinematographer that was killed was 42. She was just becoming successful. They had an obligation to protect her and everyone else on set, especially since having actual guns on set is pretty unnecessary. They screwed up in about half a dozen ways (including the fact that when there's a live gun on set there's supposed to be a shield in front of the film crew). Her death was completely preventable.

If it was my family I'd want to see some jail time for those responsible.

Yeah, pretty much this. There are some key facts that would come out in a trial that might change my mind but on the facts that we "know", this looks like the culmination of a lot of bad and or reckless actions that any one of which would have saved a life if it had been changed.

 

[ghostguy123]

If it was my family I'd want to see some jail time for those responsible.

Well, sure. Fortunately that's not how the legal system works though.
If someone accidently slipped and fell and landed on my son severely injuring him, I'd want that person burned at the stake. Pretty sure that person shouldn't be burned at the stake just because I want it to happen.

 

[the rover]

If it was my family I'd want to see some jail time for those responsible.

Well, sure. Fortunately that's not how the legal system works though.
If someone accidently slipped and fell and landed on my son severely injuring him, I'd want that person burned at the stake. Pretty sure that person shouldn't be burned at the stake just because I want it to happen.

except that isn't involuntary manslaughter. what happened on the set was.

 

[Dezbelief]

Putting all legalities aside, do you want to see Baldwin get jail and/or prison time? If so, why?

This wasn't asked of me, but here's my take. Baldwin deserves prison time. Several actions on his part demonstrates he believes his time and money is more important than the safety of others. The courts need to ingraine into all employers' head that safety should come first in the workplace. Ranking pennies over people is perhaps my number one pet peeve. Baldwin himself required the Armorer on set to not only serve as armorer but to also take on additional duties as well to cut costs. These additional duties caused the more experienced Armorers that Baldwin first offered the position to pass on the job, citing safety would suffer. Second Baldwin refused more than once gun safety lessons that the Armorer tried to give him. Third Baldwin continued to ignore safety on the set even after the set became a dangerous work environment. There was not one but two accidental discharges on set prior to the killing of Elena Hutchinson. At least one of the accidental discharges occurred in the very same room Ms Hutchinson was later fatally shot. These discharges caused many of the more experienced support staff to walk off the set. Fourth the terrible tragedy did not happen during filming, it happened when Baldwin was recklessly playing with the gun while waiting on others to finish their lunch. There was no need for the gun to be pointed anywhere near a camera or a person when it accidentally discharged killing Ms Hutchinson. IMO gross negligence on Baldwin's part on at least 4 occasions caused the death of another human being.


I still can't fathom why accidental discharges were tolerated on the set of a movie with an accidental discharge as the central theme of the plot. It's almost as if Baldwin desired accidental discharges on set.

 

[Zow]

I guess that's another question to ask cause I don't know.
Was anything illegal done? Had the bullet not hit anyone and just ended up in the dirt, would anything that happened be considered illegal??

Criminal negligence at the least.

I've been thinking about whether he and/or the armorer deserve jail time. The cinematographer that was killed was 42. She was just becoming successful. They had an obligation to protect her and everyone else on set, especially since having actual guns on set is pretty unnecessary. They screwed up in about half a dozen ways (including the fact that when there's a live gun on set there's supposed to be a shield in front of the film crew). Her death was completely preventable.

If it was my family I'd want to see some jail time for those responsible.

This is also a very reasonable take.

 

[DallasDMac]

Serious question as I have no clue. Do movie blanks look like live ammo? I ask because I have seen movies where you are looking at a revolver from the front and it looks like it has a bullet loaded, not just a pinched off empty cartridge or anything. Is it inherently obvious even if you open a movie set weapon if the cartridge is a blank or not?

No. Blanks do not look like live ammo. They have a wad of cotton or paper at the end of them instead of a bullet, but still have enough gunpowder to make a bang.

The movies where you see them loading what looks like a live bullet into the revolver are another type of fake bullet, where there is a bullet in the cartridge, but no gunpowder.

Thanks, that makes total sense. Takes me back to the original point I guess. And this is rhetorical, I know you may not know. I wonder if those bullets have a colored band or anything to ID them as "fake"? Or could Baldwin have look and assumed it was one of those? All of it just seems so inherently unsafe. As someone said, it seems the sensible solution is to not have ANY real weapons on the set.

 

[Dezbelief]

Serious question as I have no clue. Do movie blanks look like live ammo? I ask because I have seen movies where you are looking at a revolver from the front and it looks like it has a bullet loaded, not just a pinched off empty cartridge or anything. Is it inherently obvious even if you open a movie set weapon if the cartridge is a blank or not?

No. Blanks do not look like live ammo. They have a wad of cotton or paper at the end of them instead of a bullet, but still have enough gunpowder to make a bang.

The movies where you see them loading what looks like a live bullet into the revolver are another type of fake bullet, where there is a bullet in the cartridge, but no gunpowder.

Thanks, that makes total sense. Takes me back to the original point I guess. And this is rhetorical, I know you may not know. I wonder if those bullets have a colored band or anything to ID them as "fake"? Or could Baldwin have look and assumed it was one of those? All of it just seems so inherently unsafe. As someone said, it seems the sensible solution is to not have ANY real weapons on the set.

USA today
Dummy rounds in the industry look like live rounds. They have the lead tip. However, they contain no gun powder and the primer in the back is inert. Generally speaking, live rounds are never on set except for rare occasions for educational shows that are actually filming on a gun range.Oct 26, 2021



TMZ
Nov 3, 2021 — He says the dummy rounds are loaded with BBs and the live rounds are filled with gunpowder ... and the dummy rounds make a distinct noise when ...

 

[msudaisy26]

A lot of "what you should do" stuff being discussed here regarding gun safety.
Of course people screwed up and safety protocols were violated. The victims/families sure have one heck of a case should they pursue it.
However, I have no idea how people think prison time is in order here.

There were established rules.

Those rules were broken.

Someone died as a result.

Add in a culture of shortcuts and rule breaking leading up to the incident and it's pretty clear there is cause for a trial.

The big questions is:
Who should go to trial?

Well, when the person who pulled the trigger without following safety protocol is also an executive who reportedly contributed to the culture of short cuts....the question answers itself.

Bizarre that some can't connect those dots.

Thanks for the insult. I simply don't think Baldwin deserves jail time.
Not sure what dots you don't think are being connected here.

Based on what? You don't have all the facts of the case. This is why charges are brought up, an investigation is done and maybe a trial happens.

I think if Baldwin was found to be negligent that he should/could face jail time. If that Hi-Lo driver or nurse you used in your examples was under the influence or willfully ignored vital safety protocols they would not only be fired, but would face jail time and rightfully so.

Until we know all the facts are released or argued in a court of law no one can say for certain what the punishment should be.

 

[ghostguy123]

A lot of "what you should do" stuff being discussed here regarding gun safety.
Of course people screwed up and safety protocols were violated. The victims/families sure have one heck of a case should they pursue it.
However, I have no idea how people think prison time is in order here.

There were established rules.

Those rules were broken.

Someone died as a result.

Add in a culture of shortcuts and rule breaking leading up to the incident and it's pretty clear there is cause for a trial.

The big questions is:
Who should go to trial?

Well, when the person who pulled the trigger without following safety protocol is also an executive who reportedly contributed to the culture of short cuts....the question answers itself.

Bizarre that some can't connect those dots.

Thanks for the insult. I simply don't think Baldwin deserves jail time.
Not sure what dots you don't think are being connected here.

Based on what? You don't have all the facts of the case. This is why charges are brought up, an investigation is done and maybe a trial happens.

I think if Baldwin was found to be negligent that he should/could face jail time. If that Hi-Lo driver or nurse you used in your examples was under the influence or willfully ignored vital safety protocols they would not only be fired, but would face jail time and rightfully so.

Until we know all the facts are released or argued in a court of law no one can say for certain what the punishment should be.

The ONLY way I'd be cool with jail time is if it was done on purpose. Or, if he was basically waiting the gun around while knowing there was live ammo in it.

 

[ghostguy123]

As for the nurse example, no, a drunk or drugged up nurse likely does NOT see jail time. They would see rehab and maybe lose their license. I've seen and heard of a lot of stuff in nursing where you would think jail time could apply, but no.

 

[The Big Donkey]

not a lawyer, but the guy shot and killed someone, not in self-defense. jail time is appropriate.

 

[ghostguy123]

not a lawyer, but the guy shot and killed someone, not in self-defense. jail time is appropriate.

Oof.

 

[The Big Donkey]

not a lawyer, but the guy shot and killed someone, not in self-defense. jail time is appropriate.

Oof.

Oof.

 

[ghostguy123]

not a lawyer, but the guy shot and killed someone, not in self-defense. jail time is appropriate.

Oof.

Oof.

Not a lawyer, but someone accidentally died on a movie set because of a defective prop. Jail time is not appropriate.

 

[The Big Donkey]

not a lawyer, but the guy shot and killed someone, not in self-defense. jail time is appropriate.

Oof.

Oof.

Not a lawyer, but someone accidentally died on a movie set because of a defective prop. Jail time is not appropriate.

Oof.

 

[ghostguy123]

Oof off

 

[John123]

From the probable cause statement:

Statements and evidence show [ALEC] BALDWIN was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming. Statements, depositions from OSHA, and evidence show BALDWIN was provided only minimal training on firearms, even after [armorer and co-defendant Hannah Gutierrez-] REED requested more training for BALDWIN. In the deposition taken from REED, she stated BALDWIN had very limited training on the cross draw that was required for the scene on the 21st and limited training in firearms and how to check his firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded, in which REED felt was very important in his role as RUST.

Much more interesting information in the full statement here:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23593006/alec-baldwin-probable-cause-statement.pdf

 

[Dezbelief]

From the probable cause statement:

Statements and evidence show [ALEC] BALDWIN was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming. Statements, depositions from OSHA, and evidence show BALDWIN was provided only minimal training on firearms, even after [armorer and co-defendant Hannah Gutierrez-] REED requested more training for BALDWIN. In the deposition taken from REED, she stated BALDWIN had very limited training on the cross draw that was required for the scene on the 21st and limited training in firearms and how to check his firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded, in which REED felt was very important in his role as RUST.

Much more interesting information in the full statement here:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23593006/alec-baldwin-probable-cause-statement.pdf

A news segment I saw said that during the limited training he did attend he spent most of it talking on his phone with his family.

 

[John123]

From the probable cause statement:

Statements and evidence show [ALEC] BALDWIN was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming. Statements, depositions from OSHA, and evidence show BALDWIN was provided only minimal training on firearms, even after [armorer and co-defendant Hannah Gutierrez-] REED requested more training for BALDWIN. In the deposition taken from REED, she stated BALDWIN had very limited training on the cross draw that was required for the scene on the 21st and limited training in firearms and how to check his firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded, in which REED felt was very important in his role as RUST.

Much more interesting information in the full statement here:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23593006/alec-baldwin-probable-cause-statement.pdf

A news segment I saw said that during the limited training he did attend he spent most of it talking on his phone with his family.

This is addressed in the full statement I linked to.

 

[[icon]]

From the probable cause statement:

Statements and evidence show [ALEC] BALDWIN was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming. Statements, depositions from OSHA, and evidence show BALDWIN was provided only minimal training on firearms, even after [armorer and co-defendant Hannah Gutierrez-] REED requested more training for BALDWIN. In the deposition taken from REED, she stated BALDWIN had very limited training on the cross draw that was required for the scene on the 21st and limited training in firearms and how to check his firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded, in which REED felt was very important in his role as RUST.

Much more interesting information in the full statement here:

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23593006/alec-baldwin-probable-cause-statement.pdf

A news segment I saw said that during the limited training he did attend he spent most of it talking on his phone with his family.

Well NOW the pendulum swings even further into negligence / jail time territory.

Oof indeed.

 

[ghostguy123]

Who loaded the freaking gun?????

 

[the moops]

Well this sure was sloppy

‘Rust’ Prosecutors Downgrade Alec Baldwin’s Manslaughter Charges (Published 2023)

The actor’s lawyers had argued that a firearm law included by the prosecutors was not in effect at the time of the fatal shooting. It would have carried a mandatory five-year sentence.

www.nytimes.com

Prosecutors have downgraded the involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin, significantly reducing the possible prison time for the actor, who was holding the gun that discharged on the “Rust” movie set, killing the film’s cinematographer.

Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers argued this month that the Santa Fe County district attorney had incorrectly charged the actor under a version of a New Mexico firearm law that was passed months after the fatal shooting in October 2021.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Or not the least bit sloppy, and the prosecutor wanted to be seen charging him with something serious.

 

[Dezbelief]

Well this sure was sloppy

‘Rust’ Prosecutors Downgrade Alec Baldwin’s Manslaughter Charges (Published 2023)

The actor’s lawyers had argued that a firearm law included by the prosecutors was not in effect at the time of the fatal shooting. It would have carried a mandatory five-year sentence.

www.nytimes.com

Prosecutors have downgraded the involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin, significantly reducing the possible prison time for the actor, who was holding the gun that discharged on the “Rust” movie set, killing the film’s cinematographer.

Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers argued this month that the Santa Fe County district attorney had incorrectly charged the actor under a version of a New Mexico firearm law that was passed months after the fatal shooting in October 2021.

'Rust' prosecutor steps down after challenge from Alec Baldwin's defense

Baldwin's attorneys sought to disqualify the prosecutor, Andrea Reeb, because of her position as a state legislator.

www.google.com

'Rust' prosecutor steps down after challenge from Alec Baldwin's defense

KEY POINTS
The New Mexico special prosecutor in the "Rust" manslaughter case against actor Alec Baldwin and a co-defendant stepped down.

Baldwin's attorneys sought to disqualify the prosecutor, Andrea Reeb, because of her position as a state legislator.

She previously dropped a so-called enhancement, which carried a five-year prison sentence, after admitting to Baldwin's lawyers she had incorrectly applied the law.

...And, at a status hearing last week, Baldwin's attorneys asserted that the gun which killed Hutchins had been destroyed in the process of investigation. The prosecutors denied that statement, noting that the gun had experienced some internal damage during the FBI's initial investigation but is still intact...

 

[nightmare]

Well this sure was sloppy

‘Rust’ Prosecutors Downgrade Alec Baldwin’s Manslaughter Charges (Published 2023)

The actor’s lawyers had argued that a firearm law included by the prosecutors was not in effect at the time of the fatal shooting. It would have carried a mandatory five-year sentence.

www.nytimes.com

Prosecutors have downgraded the involuntary manslaughter charges against Alec Baldwin, significantly reducing the possible prison time for the actor, who was holding the gun that discharged on the “Rust” movie set, killing the film’s cinematographer.

Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers argued this month that the Santa Fe County district attorney had incorrectly charged the actor under a version of a New Mexico firearm law that was passed months after the fatal shooting in October 2021.

'Rust' prosecutor steps down after challenge from Alec Baldwin's defense

Baldwin's attorneys sought to disqualify the prosecutor, Andrea Reeb, because of her position as a state legislator.

www.google.com

'Rust' prosecutor steps down after challenge from Alec Baldwin's defense

KEY POINTS
The New Mexico special prosecutor in the "Rust" manslaughter case against actor Alec Baldwin and a co-defendant stepped down.

Baldwin's attorneys sought to disqualify the prosecutor, Andrea Reeb, because of her position as a state legislator.

She previously dropped a so-called enhancement, which carried a five-year prison sentence, after admitting to Baldwin's lawyers she had incorrectly applied the law.

...And, at a status hearing last week, Baldwin's attorneys asserted that the gun which killed Hutchins had been destroyed in the process of investigation. The prosecutors denied that statement, noting that the gun had experienced some internal damage during the FBI's initial investigation but is still intact...

Doesn't this open up or enhance a "misfire" defense?

 

[culdeus]

Charges dropped. That's that?

 

[Cowboysfan8]

Charges dropped. That's that?

Smh

:shocked:

 

[Mrs. Rannous]

Charges dropped. That's that?

In Baldwin's case, yes. Unless he brought live rounds on set, he has no responsibilty here. Never could see how he did.

 

[Runkle]

Charges dropped. That's that?

Dismissed "without prejudice" against him and the armorer. Which means they can refile at any time. I believe the issue is that the prosecution had to present their case at a hearing in the first week of May, and they don't have enough right now. My guess is they still haven't figured out exactly how a live round got in the gun, and they're not proceeding until they do?

Edit: without, not with

 

[krista4]

Dismissed "with prejudice" against him and the armorer. Which means they can refile at any time.

I haven't looked at what happened here, but "with prejudice" means the opposite of what you've stated. That would mean it can not be refiled.

 

[Runkle]

Dismissed "with prejudice" against him and the armorer. Which means they can refile at any time.

I haven't looked at what happened here, but "with prejudice" means the opposite of what you've stated. That would mean it can not be refiled.

Yes, sorry, too tired to think apparently Meant "without"; which TMZ quoted. The source I read says "the actor and producer may still face charges."

The special prosecutors, Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis, released a statement late Thursday regarding the decision to drop his charges, saying they may be refiled after “further investigation.”

“Over the last few days and in preparation for the May 3, 2023, preliminary hearing, new facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis in the case against Alexander “Alec” Rae Baldwin, III. Consequently, we cannot proceed under the current time constraints and on the facts and evidence turned over by law enforcement in its existing form. We therefore will be dismissing the involuntary manslaughter charges against Mr. Baldwin to conduct further investigation. This decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled. Our follow-up investigation will remain active and on-going.”