Merged Alec Baldwin fatally shoots crewmember on set of movie with prop gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
theprestige said:
Married to the Mob, The Hunt for Red October, Miami Blues, The Getaway, The Shadow, Heaven's Prisoners*, Thick as Thieves*, Mercury Rising*, The Departed*... Are you not familiar with Baldwin's filmography?

---
*It's not clear/I don't remember if his character held a gun, but it was likely he was on set for the filming of some scenes involving guns.
Click to expand...

He carries a gun in The Departed, but he is about the only major character who doesn't fire or point it at anyone. He definitely handles guns in the first three. They were all made in the early 90s and the late 80s. Can't say I have seen any of the other movies.
 
acbytesla said:
Thanks. I have seen a lot of his films but not those.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen a lot of his films either, but if you look over his filmography, it seems like every few years throughout his career he's starred in or produced a movie where someone (often himself) is brandishing a gun or is in scenes where guns are being brandished.

I think it's fair to say that based on his career as a movie star, he should know better.
 
theprestige said:
I haven't seen a lot of his films either, but if you look over his filmography, it seems like every few years throughout his career he's starred in or produced a movie where someone (often himself) is brandishing a gun or is in scenes where guns are being brandished.

I think it's fair to say that based on his career as a movie star, he should know better.
Click to expand...

Up to about 25 years ago I see that. But not much since. This has to be the first Western?
 
acbytesla said:
Either. But I do see as the producer, Baldwin failed. I can see the respondeat superior argument where Baldwin is responsible for hiring a 24 year old armorer who didn't take charge. But it still isn't a forseeable result. I don’t like Baldwin and there is a part of me that wouldn't mind seeing this privileged jerk get his comeuppance.

I definitely would hold him civilly accountable. But I don't see the use of sending him to jail.
Click to expand...

Pickles hired Hannah.
 
acbytesla said:
This is where a competent armorer comes into play. Someone who will tell truth to power. Someone who will tell the actor Baldwin and the producer what's what.

I can see Baldwin being found guilty and why. He was in charge and is ultimately responsible for the woman's death. (Respondeat Superior) Nevertheless, he had no reason to forsee there being live ammo even being on the set.
Click to expand...

Actually if you believe the paid by procecutor witness, fire Arms are banned from movie sets and no Accident took place.
 
theprestige said:
The whole point of firearms safety protocols is to take the matter entirely out of the realm of forseeing, and prevent exactly this kind of "how was I supposed to know?" tragedy.
Click to expand...

Yes If Coopers laws were followed to the letter this accident couldn't have happened.
 
JayUtah said:
I've been on several film sets. It's very hard to escape the feeling that you're participating in a technical process governed by such factors as safety. It's almost as if the performance is a secondary concern. It's very different than stage performance, where so much of the production process is hidden and you can sometimes really just escape into the world of the story.
Click to expand...

Exactly and what problems could be caused by having movie sets on a Working Cattle Ranch with Lax firearm policies in the non filming season?
 
jimbob said:
I disagree with the highlightrd.

He knew that there had been unintentional and unexplained discharges. Until those had been explained and precautions put in place to rectify the the safety failures all Baldwin needed to know was that some rounds were not dummies when they should have been. That was clearly an unsafe situation.

Also his skipping mandatory safety training showed a disregard for safety
Click to expand...

Both negligent discharges were do to bad hammer disapline, people who said they knew how to handle the guns who didn't know how to handle the guns.

Working Cattle Ranch, that did Corperate and other events, had to protect the sets from wild boar, and Rattle snakes.

The Ranch allowed a proformer to fire a gun on set while drunk in 2006.
 
JayUtah said:
It is unfair. And legally, under the theory of torts, Baldwin was the most proximally negligent because the gun that discharged was in his hand and pointed deliberately in the direction of a person. Yes, others contributed their own negligence. But Baldwin is liable not because he was the producer or by any other formalistic reasoning, but because he was holding the gun.

As I said early in this thread, I've used prop weapons on stage for decades, always under the supervision of a qualified armourer and always following mandatory extensive training. I'm perhaps not competent to know whether some armourer is acting diligently or whether the training I've received is sufficient. But I do know that the thing I'm holding in my hand has the capacity to injure another person, that I'm ultimately responsible for how I handle it, and that I had better pay close attention to the instructions of my betters in discharging (pun intended) that responsibility. Separately, I've also been through gun safety courses for handling real firearms. That also informs my use of them in storytelling. If you point a gun-shaped object at a person and pull the trigger without first intending to kill them, you're just monumentally stupid and should be treated as such.



Or, according to many, when a person points any sort of gun-shaped object at a living person and pulls the trigger. I need to get caught up on this thread, so forgive me if I say something that's been covered. If you're handling a weapon without being properly trained at some point along the way, that's on you. As an actor, you should never handle something that looks like a weapon without permission and training. If you give yourself permission because you're Alec Baldwin and call yourself a producer, that's on you.

Separately, if you're hired as an armourer on a set, and you allow live ammunition to be anywhere it's not supposed to be, and you don't insist on training your actors, and you don't follow accepted practices, then you are also negligent and liable. And if you're responsible for having hired and supervised that person, you're also negligent and liable.

As far as the law of torts is concerned, go look up the Palsgraff case. It goes into some detail about the notion of proximity of negligence and how to reason through contributory negligence. It also falls under the category of "can't make this up."
Click to expand...

Absolutely and your also experienced with energetic materials, the main job of any Armour is to control the energetic materials and make sure it's safe to use them in the performance, without accident or Injury.
 
theprestige said:
The year after Brandon Lee's sensational death on the set of The Crow, Alec Baldwin starred in two movies where he prominently handled firearms.
Click to expand...

Yes Brandon Lee's death was tragic killed by the bullet from a Dummy round propelled by a blank round.

The death of the TV. Star that was killed in the 1980s too was tragic but that was his own fault, he went off script and fired the blank point blank into his own skull. It caused a concussion and a brain bleed that took his life.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Absolutely you wouldn't need an Armour because all guns are Always loaded.
Click to expand...

You wouldn't have Jules killing Flock of Seagulls and Brett in Pulp Fiction or Vincent shooting Marvin in the face. Or Reservoir Dogs, Django Unchained, Jackie Brown, Inglorious Bastards and on and on.
 
acbytesla said:
You wouldn't have Jules killing Flock of Seagulls and Brett in Pulp Fiction or Vincent shooting Marvin in the face. Or Reservoir Dogs, Django Unchained, Jackie Brown, Inglorious Bastards and on and on.
Click to expand...

Absolutely True, I like the way the Armour paid by the state choose which of Coopers laws he followed, and how the Wrangler testified about Armour breaking the laws of physics on Movie sets.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Absolutely True, I like the way the Armour paid by the state choose which of Coopers laws he followed, and how the Wrangler testified about Armour breaking the laws of physics on Movie sets.
Click to expand...

I haven't paid that much attention to the trials. But I'd bet Cooper's laws are broken all the time on movie sets. I'd bet guns are pointed at people and nobody almost ever gets hurt.
When is an accident an accident?

I bet you no one goes to jail for driving a 150,000 ton, 10000 foot long ship into a bridge killing 6 people.
 
acbytesla said:
I haven't paid that much attention to the trials. But I'd bet Cooper's laws are broken all the time on movie sets. I'd bet guns are pointed at people and nobody almost ever gets hurt.
When is an accident an accident?

I bet you no one goes to jail for driving a 150,000 ton, 10000 foot long ship into a bridge killing 6 people.
Click to expand...
To be fair, nobody did that. It seems that everyone involved in driving the ship did everything they could to avoid that. If the folks on the Rust set had done the same, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today.
 
theprestige said:
To be fair, nobody did that. It seems that everyone involved in driving the ship did everything they could to avoid that. If the folks on the Rust set had done the same, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today.
Click to expand...

To be fair, that ship had no business leaving the dock.

And isn't that the argument gun nuts make all the time? Cars kill people too.
 
theprestige said:
To be fair, nobody did that. It seems that everyone involved in driving the ship did everything they could to avoid that. If the folks on the Rust set had done the same, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today.
Click to expand...

Could you have told a live round that rattled from a Dummy round that Rattled without Xray vision?

The 45 long colt is a black powder cartridge, that holds 40 grains of Black powder or as little as 5 grains of Bullseye or Winchester 231. Plenty of room free space for a metal contaminant to Rattle and mimic exactly the rattle and feel of a Dummy round.

5 rounds in the gun were dummies with holes in the side, only one round in the gun was live. If Hannah had had another round with a hole in the side, Mrs. Hutchins would still be alive. She trusted a round that Rattled because she thought live rounds didn't rattle. Now she is spending 18 month in Jail and her life is Ruined for that mistake.
 
acbytesla said:
To be fair, that ship had no business leaving the dock.

And isn't that the argument gun nuts make all the time? Cars kill people too.
Click to expand...

Yep that ship should have been operational before they decided to get underway, the Rust set should have been swept for live rounds, and all Dummies should have been inventoried and checked, then double checked.
Remember Rust was filmed on a working Cattle Ranch and Employees of the ranch had access to the sets.
 
Last week an article appeared in Variety detailing the appeal filed by Gutierrez-Reed.
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/...-judge-mary-marlowe-sommer-appeal-1236037254/

It listed 6 grounds for overturning her conviction.
Two issues regarding the jury instructions
The judge allowed testimony from non-expert witnesses regarding her conduct as an armorer
Text messages were mistakenly given to prosecution witness Seth Kenney
Excluding the testimony of witnesses who were involved in the OSHA investigation
Classifying involuntary manslaughter as a “serious violent offense”

I haven’t found the actual appeal filed by Gutierrez-Reed’s attorney but it is interesting that the Variety article does not include as grounds for appeal any of the following.

Nothing about a sloppy case/investigation or errors in the testimony.
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Actually I expect the Conviction of Miss Reed to be thrown out on Appeal because of how sloppy the states case was, I expect the appeal to start in the next 2 weeks. I already found several errors in testimony and in the investigation itself.
Click to expand...
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I expect an appeal within the next few weeks based on how sloppy the whole investigation was and the lack of experience on the part of the FBI in this case.
Click to expand...
Nor is there anything about the lack of experience of the FBI expert.

Nothing about the prosecution withholding a YouTube video. Nothing about whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or the gun went off accidently.
Crazy Chainsaw said:
The defense didn't know about the evidence being withheld until they found the video on YouTube, the Procecution knew the trigger can stick on single actions in the fire position, but they never gave that Information to the defense. That means Baldwin could be telling the Truth and undercuts the Procecution's claims.
Click to expand...


Nothing about hearsay testimony from Sarah or Pickles.
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Pickles and Sarah were going to be asked about it, but it was Ruled Hear say.
Click to expand...
Crazy Chainsaw said:
I can not reveal that at this time but it will be in the Appeals motion.
Click to expand...


Nothing about perjury from prosecution withnesses.
Crazy Chainsaw said:
You have a Procecution witness that Lied on the Witness stand.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
whoanellie said:
Last week an article appeared in Variety detailing the appeal filed by Gutierrez-Reed.
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/...-judge-mary-marlowe-sommer-appeal-1236037254/

It listed 6 grounds for overturning her conviction.
Two issues regarding the jury instructions
The judge allowed testimony from non-expert witnesses regarding her conduct as an armorer
Text messages were mistakenly given to prosecution witness Seth Kenney
Excluding the testimony of witnesses who were involved in the OSHA investigation
Classifying involuntary manslaughter as a “serious violent offense”

I haven’t found the actual appeal filed by Gutierrez-Reed’s attorney but it is interesting that the Variety article does not include as grounds for appeal any of the following.

Nothing about a sloppy case/investigation or errors in the testimony.


Nor is there anything about the lack of experience of the FBI expert.

Nothing about the prosecution withholding a YouTube video. Nothing about whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or the gun went off accidently.



Nothing about hearsay testimony from Sarah or Pickles.




Nothing about perjury from prosecution withnesses.
Click to expand...

We just had a hearing on the Badwin motion for dismissal, the FBI conducted a worthless test and Failed to document the state of the mechanism before testing, and the gun may have been damaged prior to testing.

Both cases should have been thrown out of Court before trial, the Procecution willfully destroyed evidence.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
We just had a hearing on the Badwin motion for dismissal, the FBI conducted a worthless test and Failed to document the state of the mechanism before testing, and the gun may have been damaged prior to testing.

Both cases should have been thrown out of Court before trial, the Procecution willfully destroyed evidence.
Click to expand...


But nothing about the arguments you were sure the lawyers would make.
 
whoanellie said:
Last week an article appeared in Variety detailing the appeal filed by Gutierrez-Reed.
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/...-judge-mary-marlowe-sommer-appeal-1236037254/

It listed 6 grounds for overturning her conviction.
Two issues regarding the jury instructions
(The judge allowed testimony from non-expert witnesses regarding her conduct as an armorer)


Nothing about a sloppy case/investigation or errors in the testimony.

(Failed to document history of the weapon as indicated by wear marks before destroying the weapons history with destructive testing.)


Nor is there anything about the lack of experience of the FBI expert.

(Watch the hearing the tests the FBI did were meaningless and they failed to document the history of the Firearms wear before destroying it.)

(They failed to look for extractor marks on the shell casings which might have indicated the shells were used in a rifle prior to being in the dumby boxes, so might have been on set by accident from ranch personnel or private contractors employed by the ranch.)



Nothing about the prosecution withholding a YouTube video. Nothing about whether Baldwin pulled the trigger or the gun went off accidently.



Nothing about hearsay testimony from Sarah or Pickles.




Nothing about perjury from prosecution withnesses.
Click to expand...



It will come out in the appeal. also there are other things you do not know about, but I can't discuss them until the appeal..
 
Last edited:
Alec Baldwin’s role as a producer will not be considered during ‘Rust’ trial, judge rules
https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/08/us/rust-trial-alec-baldwin-producer/index.html
In a significant victory for the defense, Alec Baldwin’s role as a producer on the film “Rust” will not be considered during his involuntary manslaughter trial in the fatal on-set shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer ruled Monday.

Baldwin’s position as a producer has consistently been part of the prosecution’s strategy as they have sought to show he had more responsibility and influence on the set than just as an actor. In court Monday, the prosecution said as producer he should have been aware of set safety requirements, while Baldwin’s defense said this evidence was prejudicial and confusing to the jury.

In issuing her ruling, the judge admitted she struggled to understand the prosecution’s arguments.

“I’m having real difficulty with the state’s position that they want to show that as a producer, he didn’t follow guidelines, and therefore, as an actor, Mr. Baldwin did all these things wrong resulting in the death of Halyna Hutchins because as a producer, he allowed this all to happen,” Marlowe Sommer said.

The judge said her decision was impacted by the fact that there were other producers on the film and Baldwin himself was not solely responsible for on set decision-making.
Click to expand...
 
The judge claiming that she struggled to follow the argument is highly suspicious. While one may agree or not with the argument, it ain't all that complicated. Producer behaves recklessly with firearm safety, and when he puts a gun in his own hand, the consequences of lax safety play out. It's not a Gordian ******* Knot. I smell a little judicial wink and nod.
 
Thermal said:
The judge claiming that she struggled to follow the argument is highly suspicious. While one may agree or not with the argument, it ain't all that complicated. Producer behaves recklessly with firearm safety, and when he puts a gun in his own hand, the consequences of lax safety play out. It's not a Gordian ******* Knot. I smell a little judicial wink and nod.
Click to expand...
Maybe it's a law thing. Like, as a layperson, the judge understands what's being argued just fine. But what the judge doesn't understand is the prosecution's attempt to connect the necessary legal dots from the safety protocols on set to the alleged liability of a producer. For all I know, the judge's decision is a pointed dig at the prosecutor for not having proper citations in their legal brief.
 
theprestige said:
Maybe it's a law thing. Like, as a layperson, the judge understands what's being argued just fine. But what the judge doesn't understand is the prosecution's attempt to connect the necessary legal dots from the safety protocols on set to the alleged liability of a producer. For all I know, the judge's decision is a pointed dig at the prosecutor for not having proper citations in their legal brief.
Click to expand...

The concept of an employer/supervisor being responsible for the consequences of unsafe working conditions is pretty well-trod ground though, no? Maybe it's the precise four corners of the role of a Producer that is ambiguous in the law?
 
Clearly the prosecution weren't able to show that Baldwin actually had enough managerial responsibilities and therefore the judge decided too many of the jury would be misled into thinking producer = boss, which it absolutely does not.
 
Shrinker said:
Clearly the prosecution weren't able to show that Baldwin actually had enough managerial responsibilities and therefore the judge decided too many of the jury would be misled into thinking producer = boss, which it absolutely does not.
Click to expand...

Seems reasonable to me.

That said, as a juror sitting in the court of public opinion, I think Baldwin had enough oversight and influence as a producer and movie star to both be aware of and effect the correction of the gun safety issues on set.
 
theprestige said:
Seems reasonable to me.

That said, as a juror sitting in the court of public opinion, I think Baldwin had enough oversight and influence as a producer and movie star to both be aware of and effect the correction of the gun safety issues on set.
Click to expand...

Pickles was set Producer, she already stated in Court, she was in control and she hired the Armour.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Pickles was set Producer, she already stated in Court, she was in control and she hired the Armour.
Click to expand...

I know this. I still believe Baldwin was in a position to influence this outcome.

Other people had already walked off the set because they didn't want to work in the lax safety culture. If they could figure it out, so could Baldwin. And while they didn't have the standing to force Pickles to do her job better, Baldwin did.
 
theprestige said:
Seems reasonable to me.

That said, as a juror sitting in the court of public opinion, I think Baldwin had enough oversight and influence as a producer and movie star to both be aware of and effect the correction of the gun safety issues on set.
Click to expand...

I doubt the judge knows this, and I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't work on set to know this either, but actors are almost always cosseted in their trailers or gone home. As a matter of etiquette, they are spirted away by an AD at the first opportunity. Producers (real, working producers) do actual work making sure the cast not distracted by production affairs. This isn't just big movie stars, it's all levels of actors with their own trailer, they are just given the space to do their own thing or chinwag with the other actors.

That's not to say an actor doesn't pick up gossip in the make-up chair or whatever, but it's very unsafe IMHO to assume a move star would just know what's going on. I'd say they are likely to be the last to know aside from maybe the caterers and the medic.
 
theprestige said:
I know this. I still believe Baldwin was in a position to influence this outcome.

Other people had already walked off the set because they didn't want to work in the lax safety culture. If they could figure it out, so could Baldwin. And while they didn't have the standing to force Pickles to do her job better, Baldwin did.
Click to expand...

Let's not forget that Baldwin was not involved in the other 2 misfires they were caused by bad Hammer disapline on people who were supposed to already have been trained. They also involved blanks not live rounds made by Atomic Ammo. Which is the most likely manufacturer of the rounds.
We also need to remember there were other grievances as well as a strike going on at the time.
 
Shrinker said:
I doubt the judge knows this, and I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't work on set to know this either, but actors are almost always cosseted in their trailers or gone home. As a matter of etiquette, they are spirted away by an AD at the first opportunity. Producers (real, working producers) do actual work making sure the cast not distracted by production affairs. This isn't just big movie stars, it's all levels of actors with their own trailer, they are just given the space to do their own thing or chinwag with the other actors.

That's not to say an actor doesn't pick up gossip in the make-up chair or whatever, but it's very unsafe IMHO to assume a move star would just know what's going on. I'd say they are likely to be the last


to know aside from maybe the caterers and the medic.
Click to expand...

True, the main reason for that is also safety and insurance, if an actor is hurt or disfigured by an accident on set or by a crazy fan, that can cost the producers more than the movie will Make in profits.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom