The account by Mr. Souza explained why Mr. Baldwin had been pointing the gun at the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins....
Mr. Baldwin had been sitting in a wooden church pew, rehearsing a scene that involved “cross drawing” a revolver and pointing it at the camera lens, Mr. Souza said, according to the affidavit. Mr. Souza said that he had been standing beside Ms. Hutchins “viewing the camera angle.” Mr. Souza saw Ms. Hutchins grabbing her midsection and starting to stumble backward. Then he noticed he was bleeding from his shoulder. The details, woven together by Detective Joel Cano in an application for a search warrant to seize everything from camera memory cards to bone fragments and firearm discharge, provide a chilling account of the fatal shooting on a production set that had been beset by accidental gun discharges and labor disputes between producers and crew members.
From that, I'm going to assume that the affidavit was the sworn statement of Detective Joel Cano. He's trying to get a search warrant to look at whatever video there is of the incident. In that context, Souza's statement is something to be checked. Will the video corroborate the statement? I'll wait and see. I'm unusually suspicious because it seems that we're seeing pro-Baldwin bias from the media and the movie industry. The faceless crew members don't have the same kind of advocacy. And people are too quick to see one aspect of recklessness — the live ammunition in the gun — as covering 100% of the blame.
Detective Cano said in the affidavit, describing how he had interviewed Mr. Souza on Friday afternoon, after the director had been treated for his injury....
Ah, now it's clear, at the bottom of the article, that it's the detective's affidavit.
Mr. Souza was grappling with delays the day of the shooting, after about six members of the camera crew had quit over late pay and safety conditions, the affidavit said. Another crew had quickly been hired, but the production was off to a late start because of the labor problems. Mr. Souza said only one camera was available for recording before the shooting. Asked about “the employees’ behavior,” Mr. Souza told investigators that “everyone was getting along” and that there had been “no altercations” to his knowledge.
Was everyone getting along? That doesn't sound accurate. There is reason to question Souza's credibility.
By the way, do you believe that this was the kind of movie that would have a scene with a gun fired straight at the camera? It's the story of a grandfather who helps a 13-year-old boy run away after an accidental killing.
ADDED: I wrote, "I wish the NYT wouldn't look like it's trying to help Baldwin." By that, I mean, I don't want the NYT to try to help Baldwin. I want scrupulously professional, neutral journalism. But I don't know that the NYT is trying to help Baldwin, only that it looks like it is. So my sentence isn't quite right, because it could mean that I'd be satisfied if only the NYT did a better job of hiding whatever bias it might have.
As long as I'm amending this post with self-critique, let me add that there's a problem with "Souza said something, but we don't know it's true." I don't know that Souza said something, only that someone quoted him as saying something. Maybe he said nothing or maybe he said something else.
AND: I'm just noticing that, according to the director's quote in the affidavit, Baldwin was sitting down during the incident, and it was an indoor scene. I'm trying to imagine the scene: The character is in church and, for some reason, he draws his gun and points it at someone. Or he draws the gun and immediately shoots someone. Maybe the character in the movie whips out his gun in a very stupid way, with his finger on the trigger, and he witlessly kills somebody. That could make sense in a plot where the man has been trying to help a boy who did something similar, killing someone accidentally. Maybe Baldwin needed to look like an inept fool, mishandling the gun.
Posts
111 comments:
Wishing that the New York Times wouldn't show favorability towards a member of the "anointed" is like wishing that a scorpion wouldn't sting. It's in the nature of the beast for the NYT to cover for such as Baldwin.
This has been an amazing example of narrative setting.
From the get go, reported as an accident. How do we even know that? Wouldn't this be an amazing way for someone to "get away" with murder? How do we know Alec Baldwin didn't do this? How do we know someone off camera who knew the scene didn't load the gun with live ammo? How do we know it wasn't disgruntled crew who wanted an accident hoping to mess up with shoot - maybe not intending for a death to occur?
We don't - but those questions are being framed as answered already in reporting.
I could go on.
Small note to Ann: You've been shooting. An actor aiming right at the camera in his mind doesn't at ALL mean the bullet will hit the lens once you factor in distance, firearm, ACTUAL aim, trigger pull dynamics, hand shake, etc.
Sad as this really is, Baldwin would attack and crush anybody else if it happened to them and promptly blame it on President Trump. He, himself put out a tweet when a Police officer killed somebody that read "I wonder how it must feel to wrongfully kill someone...," ...well, now he knows. Karma is a bitch sometimes...and what goes around, comes around. Really sad for Halyna Hutchins family. She didn't deserve this and neither did they.
"Not completely. I wish the NYT wouldn't look like it's trying to help Baldwin."
But that's what we're all supposa do. I was glad to see that Halyna's husband/now widower showed up to comfort Alec.
Is there, I don't know, a screenplay? With some stage direction perhaps? Or maybe anybody else who heard the director say, "Let's try this - point the gun at Camera 1 and fire it"?
Of course the NYT is on Baldwin's team. For the record, I don't believe - so far, based on available information - that Baldwin is guilty of anything but sloppy firearm discipline, which might be excusable in an active movie scene if he was doing what he was directed to do. But there was never a chance that the media was going to stay neutral with the noted Trump-lampooner Alec Baldwin involved.
Mel Gibson, now, or Clint Eastwood...
Tangentially, it seems unusual to me that an affidavit for a search warrant would be made public so quickly. Very unusual.
when the gun... suddenly went off and killed the cinematographer, according to the film’s director...
So the gun did it.
Was the gun a single action revolver? They don't just go off. You have to cock the the hammer. Perhaps cocking the hammer was part of the scene he was rehearsing. Dramatically working the action of a gun is a common thing in movies. It's like saying, "This your last chance."
Normally when you're handling guns it's essential to always check if the gun is loaded. I don't know if that's something expected of actors being handed "cold" guns on movie sets or whether it is practical to expect them to do that. Perhaps they rely solely on the armorer to check the guns right before they are handed to an actor and Baldwin was doing what he had always done.
If that's the case, we're back to the negligence of the armorer, I guess.
The Left covers up for all members of the Left. It's in their charter. The NYT wants to frame this as a "tragic accident" while it's really a negligent homicide. Neither Baldwin nor the assistant director actually checked the gun to make sure it wasn't loaded. They just assumed it was. Baldwin pulled the trigger while pointing the gun at a person, a reckless action as all gun safety people will say. The same gun was used for target practice the day before.
How would the NYT frame it if Dick Cheney and not Baldwin shot the gun?
AA: Thank you for being conscientious and updating your post with clarifications. Not many bloggers make the effort to do that.
So the gun “suddenly went off?” Wonder why it would do such a thing?
If Alec Baldwin, a major movie star, supported by a credentialed expert, can't be safe from guns just going off and killing innocent people, how can we allow the stupid rubes access to these terrible, evil machines?
trigger... trigger. trigger.
did the trigger trigger itself?
"Wishing that the New York Times wouldn't show favorability towards a member of the "anointed" is like wishing that a scorpion wouldn't sting."
No. The scorpion can't read and the scorpion has no way to worry about its reputation.
I'm not wishing like Snow White at the wishing well. I'm using the word "wish" publicly, in writing critiquing the NYT, and I've been publicly critiquing the NYT for 17 years. Obviously, I think this critique is worthwhile. It is worth it to keep up the pressure and to illuminate the details. It's worth it to me whether the NYT responds or not, but I believe I am read by some people who could be influenced to do better and by people whose mind contains the reputation of the NYT.
I know many of my readers would just say the NYT is bad, so never read it. But somehow you're reading me, when my way of blogging has always had a large component of critique of the NYT. This is what I do!
The whole thing sounds precisely like a Columbo episode.
By the way, do you believe that this was the kind of movie that would have a scene with a gun fired straight at the camera?
It doesn't have to be straight at the camera like the opening scene of a James Bond movie where the camera looks straight down the barrel of the gun. They say Baldwin was performing a cross draw, which is using your off side do draw the gun from a holster on the dominant side. In doing so the muzzle makes a long horizontal sweep that could certainly include the camera operator and anyone else opposite Baldwin.
Do we know yet what kind of weapon it was? Consider that in a period western they are likely using some kind of single action revolver and perhaps Baldwin lacked the skill to draw, cock the hammer and fire in a clean made for cinema way, so someone thought it would be okay to pre cock while it was holstered. Disaster....
Has the exact model of the pistol been named? It would help understand what happened
I'd also like to understand, what if anything was in the 6 chambers. Clearly that is known.
- was it 5 expended casings, and a live round? suggesting a non-cleared gun after target practice?
- was it one live round? 6 live rounds?
Always point the muzzle in a safe direction. Keep your finger off the trigger until you are on target and ready to fire...
...no exceptions for actors in a movie...
The only thing Baldwin is "distraught" about is the number of zeros on the check he'll have to write to settle this. He was "in tears"? Well, he is a very good actor.
The media has absolved Baldwin of any guilt.
They have indicted the Assistant Director who handed him the gun, and are actively prosecuting him.
Baldwin was both the producer and main actor in the 'Rust' flick.
This he was in overall charge AND the one manipulating the so-called prop gun when it fired.
Thus he has overall responsibility as well as specific responsibility for the accident.
He willfully and with purpose aimed the weapon, yes it was a weapon, at others and pulled the trigger without checking first to see if it was truly unloaded.
Now they have armors that declared it was a 'cold' weapon. And they claim they don't teach the actors how to check to make sure. They say that is the 'rules'. All that does is make Hollywood itself negligent for NOT teaching them basic safety rules.
Criminally one can make the case that since Baldwin did not check (rules or no rules) and still pointed it at people.. he is libel since it was truly a real revolver, not some cap pistol.
Civilly he can most definitely be sued several ways.
>If it was "at the camera," wouldn't it hit the lens?<
Only if he was an extraordinarily good shot. And I promise you - Alec Baldwin is not a good shot
Funny how those guns "go off" all by themselves. None of mine ever have. I guess I'm lucky.
I become dubious of anyone who writes in that weird passive voice: "The gun went off". Its like "The SUV suddenly swerved and hit someone" or "violence broke out".
Anyway, that Gun has some explaining to do.
As others have mentioned, compare this to the hostility and contempt poured out upon Dick Cheney for his hunting accident.
By the way, do you believe that this was the kind of movie that would have a scene with a gun fired straight at the camera? It's the story of a grandfather who helps a 13-year-old boy run away after an accidental killing.
It's a Western, so yes that's believable. For what it's worth; every description of the movie I've seen has noted that Baldwin's character is also a notorious outlaw.
""Alec Baldwin was rehearsing a scene that involved pointing a revolver 'towards the camera lens'... when the gun... suddenly went off and killed the cinematographer, according to the film’s director...""
No.
Alec Baldwin negligently operated a dangerous weapon and killed a woman.
This is directly analogous to him running a woman over with a car.
Or dropping as pallet on her with a forklift.
Guns do not just kill people. They are no more inherently dangerous than anything else in this world.
Everyone in the world is safe from the guns I carry. Nobody will be accidentally shot by guns I am wielding.
Alec Baldwin is responsible for what happened. You cannot blame the gun. You cannot blame having live ammo in the blank shed. If you are "practicing" with a gun why the fuck is there a magazine in it al all?
CLEAR THE FUCKING GUN. IT IS WHAT YOU DO.
If you go to jail for being drunk and running over someone you go to jail for shooting someone.
Souza's account literally does explain what happened. You're asking the NYT to add a disclaimer that Souza might be lying, but anyone who ever says anything about anything might be lying, and I don't think any news outlet caveats every quotation that way as a matter of course.
People are focusing heavily on the likely presence of live ammunition because without it, there wouldn't be any story here. Baldwin could have been a reckless horse's ass with that gun, but unless this is a repeat of the vanishingly rare Jon-Erik Hexum situation, the only reason the cinematographer is dead is because someone put live ammo in that gun. Maaaaybe that was Baldwin who did that and not some faceless crew member, but without some shred of motive for him to do so, I don't think it's "protecting" him not to lean in to that possibility.
Mr. Baldwin had been sitting in a wooden church pew, rehearsing a scene that involved “cross drawing” a revolver and pointing it at the camera lens, Mr. Souza said, according to the affidavit
If this is true, then it might explain why the firearm was referred to as "cold" as suggested in other accounts of the incident. That description doesn't suggest a scene involving discharging the firearm (and I'm going to call it a firearm from now on, because there seems ample evidence that it was not nor ever would be a prop placed into Alec Baldwin's hands). From various accounts, such a scene would be filmed with a firearm that did not have any rounds, blanks or otherwise, in it, because it is only aiming and not firing. Safer productions would have used a non-functioning prop for such a rehearsal.
That description also suggests Alec Baldwin had no reason to cock the weapon or pull the trigger.
As for missing the camera if aiming at it; the accuracy of these firearms in the hands of a trained professional is iffy from a distance. Nothing of this incident suggests Alec Baldwin would know how to properly aim such a firearm and actually hit a target he intended to hit (unless we learn of some issue between him and the cinematographer). I doubt the bullet hit the camera, altered direction and still had energy to pass through the cinematographer and into the director. I'd have questions if it actually did pass through the camera, the cinematographer, and into the director.
I support the notion of neutrality here. However, I do have a bias. I work in oil and gas industry. If a safety incident occurs at one of our locations; the company doesn't get coverage like "what was the role of the contracted help in the incident". Rather, the coverage is like "those oil companies are all about profits and skimp on safety thus causing these events over and over". Well, for this movie production, reports suggest it was a low budget flick with poor safety on the set, yet this is rarely the headline. The people running this production deserve blame, and yes, Wendybar, I'm well aware of the name of one of the producers on the set that day. Neutrality of coverage would make sure that was understood and the connection to liability involved.
But I don't know that the NYT is trying to help Baldwin,
Yeah, you do.
only that it looks like it is.
And the reason why it looks like it is, is because [drumroll] it really, truly, is trying to help a prominent member of the left wing lunatic coterie! I read your critique as wishing the Times hid it better. But then it wouldn’t be the Times.
Ann Althouse said...
I know many of my readers would just say the NYT is bad, so never read it. But somehow you're reading me, when my way of blogging has always had a large component of critique of the NYT. This is what I do!
It isn't bad to read the NYT's.
But if you call other more honest and accurate sources of information "trashy" that is an obvious problem for us.
The NYT's is the definition of trashy.
Seems like there could be a chance of a camera's eye view of the event as it occurred, assuming the evidence hasn't been destroyed.
Alec Baldwin was rehearsing a scene that involved pointing a revolver 'towards the camera lens'... when the gun... suddenly went off...
Amazing how guns suddenly go off when someone pulls the trigger.
Did the scene involve pointing the revolver toward the camera lense and pulling the trigger? That would explain why he pulled the trigger (intentionally rather than accidentally). It would not absolve him of blame.
Throughout this strange, high-profile story, it seems that we're getting a lot of noise, but not much real information. I wish the media would look more deeply into the labor issues that plagued the production, especially since several of the crew walked off the set earlier that day. Alec Baldwin is famously hard to work with. Was he a problem for the crew? Is it possible that a disgruntled crew member intended to sabotage him by giving him a loaded prop gun so that something terrible like this would happen?
The obvious culprit is Trump fans. Take advantage of the inept crew to get a live bullet in the gun, and watch Alec Baldwin make a possibly fatal mistake. Bwa-ha-ha.
Maybe someone who knows more about guns: Even if the gun is loaded, can it really go off if it's just "pointed toward the camera"? When I fired a gun once, it was a 22 and you had to pull the trigger hard. It doesn't just go off, duh. Maybe Alec Baldwin was clowning around in addition to the actions of the villainous Trump fans. I don't think I would ever in a million years try that kind of clowning around, it seems terrifying.
The story that Alec Baldwin accidentally shot a beautiful blonde Russian woman dead while acting in a Western immediately drew out all the possible versions of what happened - tragic accident, deliberate murder, series of errors with all possible permutations; and was followed by all possible versions of how the incident would be investigated - cover-up by law officers, full and fair investigation; and then all possible forms of coverage were immediately laid out - support a cover-up, try to get at the truth. Twitter circled uncertainly, the political world universally gave harsh laugh and fell to calculations, Christians wondered whether they could just give a harsh laugh. Feminists dithered unable to say how the patriarchy was at fault - thinking, "This should have been done by Trump" but since it wasn't then ... This took up the first minute.
Every imagination is at work on facts that are are scanty and unreliable.
It is still Baldwin and the beautiful Blonde Russian but Labor being abused by Baldwin the Liberal has arrived on stage along with the further detail that the scene was a Church. Lawyers and Hollywood and PR are, of course fully represented - dark figures, noises off. It's a Chappaquiddick-size story. Baldwin was producing a story about a shooting in a church, doubtless featuring a bunch of Christian hypocrites, when his non-union scab gun-master made a mistake which his own indifference to gun safety made a fatal mistake and so Baldwin, liberal Hollywood scold, pointed a gun at and shot a beautiful and ambitious blonde Russian woman. As a movie, the premise is incredible, only the aliens are missing. The credits are still rolling and so far, they are an instant classic. Everyone is staring at the screen, frozen, popcorn half-way to their mouth. WHAT! And it's not a movie, it's all around in reality like a hologram or Matrix or Inception.
I think I remember reading that a single shot was fired, passing through the director and then striking and killing the cinematographer, but that doesn't seem to fit with the description of events given by the director. Baldwin is sitting down, so if he fires the weapon and the bullet is travelling at a slight upward angle to hit the director in the shoulder, how does the bullet then angle downward to hit the cinematographer in the abdomen, causing her to grab her midsection? Are the director and cinematographer downhill from Baldwin? Is the director kneeling so his shoulder is at the level of the cinematographer's abdomen, or was there more than one shot fired? I would think they would willingly turn over any video to the police to aid them in their investigation. The seeming reluctance to fully cooperate with the investigation, along with the NYT and other stories that assiduously direct culpability away from Baldwin, creates a cloud of suspicion that is (hopefully) unfounded.
He needs a search warrant to look at the video of a crime scene?
None of this explains why there was a real bullet in the gun, which is kind of the point of all of this...
Btw, if you have a properly functioning revolver, load it and put it on a table.
Now go about your business. It won't fire for the next ten thousand years without some sort of input...it's no more dangerous than a stapler...
A revolver cannot “suddenly go off” without the trigger being pulled.
The gun "went off". Just so we know who the active party was.
P.S. Dear Ann dear, as you read all comments before posting them (or not), could you not save us some embarrassment by deleting our mistaken duplications?
“I know many of my readers would just say the NYT is bad, so never read it. But somehow you're reading me, when my way of blogging has always had a large component of critique of the NYT. This is what I do!”
And God bless you for it. But doing the same thing over and over with expectations of a better outcome/behavior with the NYT is akin to breaking wind in a hurricane. Or something like that.
"The gun suddenly went off" Huh, somehow an inanimate object has agency to just go off. "Then Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger and killed the cinematographer". There fixed it for you.
Guns' do not suddenly go off. I have a friend that has a gun with a bit of a hair trigger but you still have to pull the trigger for it to go off.
From the get go, reported as an accident. How do we even know that? Wouldn't this be an amazing way for someone to "get away" with murder? How do we know Alec Baldwin didn't do this? How do we know someone off camera who knew the scene didn't load the gun with live ammo? How do we know it wasn't disgruntled crew who wanted an accident hoping to mess up with shoot - maybe not intending for a death to occur?
Apparently, you are not a fan of Occam's Razor. Ridiculous conjecture like this is not helpful at all. Let the investigation proceed, but to make up bizarre scenarios when you certainly know nothing about it is silly.
Sad as this really is, Baldwin would attack and crush anybody else if it happened to them and promptly blame it on President Trump.
Another ridiculous, unsupported statement (and don't point to the tweet you cited, that is a completely different circumstance).
"While sitting in a Christian church, Donald Trump casually aimed a loaded gun at a Ukrainian woman, pulled the trigger and killed her."
“This is what I do.”
Heh.
The NYT can’t help it. Others can. This story should be over unless there is evidence that the killing was deliberate. Baldwin is an asshole. So what? Stop already.
His finger was on the trigger. Guns don't just go off on their own.
It's the Assistant Directors fault. It's the Assistant's Assistant's fault. No, it's the Armorer's fault. The Armorer is 24, grotesque-looking with tattoos and piercings---she looks like she's ready to be sacrificed, so let's throw her under the bus. It's the Man on the Moon's fault.
They will find anyone they can to pull in, in order to save Alec Baldwin. This is the Hollywood crowd, and Baldwin is their God and must be preserved and shielded no matter what.
It's very similar to the Cuomo-sexuals, but even they turned on their Master, eventually, didn't they?
Or, perhaps it's a bit Teddy Kennedy---Mary Jo Kopechne---Chappaquiddik---ish, doesn't it? The car drove itself off the landing.
Why wouldn't someone read a widely published and cited source of news, regardless of whether that news is accurate or portrays the whole picture? It's important to read and understand propaganda, false information, and simply different opinions than your own.
That's why I read you Ann and have for....>10 years I believe.
I recall reading in the past about a film industry rule prohibiting a character from "shooting" a weapon directly at the camera lens/viewer. They seem to always aim just off center.
Searching for it now, all that comes up are Baldwin articles.
From Jim Treacher, calling out Jake Tapper:
"I believe Alec Baldwin when he says he didn’t know the gun was loaded. And, also, in addition to that, he pointed it directly at Halyna Hutchins and now she’s dead. The Republicans didn’t make him do that. The Republicans didn’t hire the crew members who were supposed to prevent it from happening. The Republicans didn’t tell Baldwin to point a gun, even a gun he thought was unloaded, at another human being and pull the trigger.
...
Alec Baldwin is innocent until proven guilty. But that doesn’t oblige me to have any sympathy for him. Or for his enablers in the media."
...when the gun...suddenly went off and killed the cinematographer...
One must wade through unplumbed depths of leftist bullshit these days, but this is a unique example. It's the bullshit limit approaching infinity. Whose words are those? Some copy-creepoid at the NYT or a mouthpiece hired by Alec Baldwin? Whoever he is he's obfuscating for Baldwin.
Gun don't do that, particularly modern reproductions of the iconic Colt 1873 Single Action Army. Firing this pistol requires two distinct and deliberate actions performed in order. First, one must cock the hammer to its full-cock position. Only then will the trigger function at all. Uncocked, the SAA's trigger does nothing. Each subsequent shot requires the same two deliberate actions. Consequently, modern iterations of the Colt 1873 model are among the safest firearms available. Accidently firing an SAA necessarily involves extreme negligence that should be regarded as criminal by default. The original design was much less safe because the uncocked hammer rests directly on the primer of the indexed cartridge, making the weapon vulnerable to an unintended discharge resulting from a sharp impact on the hammer spur. In other words, when John Wayne says "Drop it!" don't drop it. Responsible owners of original-design Single Action Army revolvers, the cowboy's six-shooter, never load six rounds. The indexed chamber is always left empty. Most modern reproductions employ a revised hammer design that circumvents this hazard.
The long and the short of these facts is this: Baldwin almost certainly deliberately fired that gun. Perhaps he was handed a loaded pistol with the hammer already cocked (an extremely dangerous situation) and he failed to make certain of its condition, in which case he was inexcusably negligent. But loaded or not, uncocked, the gun could not have discharged itself.
PS
Perhaps the role called for Baldwin's character to carry a Civil War-style cap-and-ball revolver rather than a cartridge gun. Doesn't matter, the same rules apply only more so.
Seeing more slagging of the Armorer and the First Assistant Director.
First AD is being written off as having a cavalier attitude towards safety. Per IMDB he's got 83 First AD/2nd Unit Director credits since 1996. Kind of hard to imagine that he's that much of a slacker, he keeps getting hired.
There definitely seems to be an effort being made to protect Baldwin. I'm starting to suspect that there may have been an "Authentic Alec Baldwin Conniption Fit"™ thrown prior to this incident occurring and they're trying to minimize damage before the sheriff's report comes out.
The homicidal ideation in Baldwin's tweets is astounding.
Tweet after tweet of him talking about guns and shooting people. Too many to list, but here's my favorite:
Baldwin: "So...when the plot stumbles or collapses, just shoot someone.
Correct?" ---June 24, 2018
"when the gun suddenly went off"
That's what happens when you pull the trigger.
Of all the participants in this awful mess, the gun seems to be the only one that did what it was supposed to do.
"The scorpion can't read and the scorpion has no way to worry about its reputation."
A reputation is subjective. The NYTimes writers and editors only worry what the paper's owners think of that reputation, and you are not in that club. In short, your opinion is irrelevant to them, especially given you still buy the paper.
I canceled my NYT subscription maybe 15 years ago. The trend of publishing partisan hit jobs - consistently against GOP candidates - immediately before an election had been obvious since the '90s. The exposé of how terrorists used the SWIFT electronic financial network really got my goat.
In the past decade, under former publisher "Pinch" Sulzberger and editor Dean Baquet, the NYT seems to have veered to a business model that conveys ONLY what its core liberal audience and progressive employees want to hear. Topics not covered at all may be even more important. (To be fair, "news organizations" left and right have adopted a similar business model.) These policy decisions, while expected on the editorial and opinion pages, now dominate the news pages as well. Maybe it's out of fear of the newsroom mob, maybe it's just about higher profits. The "newspaper of record" has come to be anything but.
With such a polarizing figure like Alec Baldwin, there does seem to be an immediate news judgment that he's either "our guy" or "the other side's guy" and then the reporting proceeds from there.
I know many of my readers would just say the NYT is bad, so never read it.
STRAW MAN ALERT! The Don Quixote of the NYT strikes again…
For many of us it is not that NYT is bad but that NYT has abandoned journalism practices, has stated they have abandoned journalistic practices and yet somehow you and others still treat them like journalists and expect them to behave
like journalists…
I wonder if there’s ever a time you would believe it no longer worth while to continue NYT critique?
If part of a scene, sympathy. If intentionally being a jerk by shooting a blank at the woman in order to alarm her, jail.
"... a scene that involved “cross drawing” a revolver and pointing it at the camera lens..."
Not "shooting at the camera" or "pointing it at the camera lens and pulling the trigger".
Hmm...
From the first I heard of this story, I keep thinking about the last shot of this.
Hmm…juicy narrative, or running protection for Baldwin?
Ann, I believe Skeptical Voter is referring to Aesop's fable of the scorpion and the frog (?) crossing the river.
With “all the news that’s fit to print" long discarded, which is the guiding principle now? It’s one of these two.
And Alec Baldwin could not sit in a different pew, where he would not be pointing the gun at real people?
And "towards the camera" isn't even the same as "at the camera," let alone "at the cinematographer." If it was "at the camera," wouldn't it hit the lens?
*****
Alec the Lefty has little self-control (choose either his belly or his temper as Exhibit #1), and yet you expect him to have genuine "gun control" (i.e., not lefty-minded gun control) and an ability to aim. Seriously?
"I want scrupulously professional, neutral journalism."
Amen. Surely that should be any honest journalist's objective even if it is never completely attainable in practice (what you see always being conditioned in part by what you expect to see as well as the vantage point from which you're doing the seeing). That desire for objectivity and truth-telling is hardly limited to journalism, and you could say essentially the same (indeed, you have often said the same thing) about other participants in public discourse -- today's post about vaccine experts being less than forthright on the need for booster shots being a case in point.
Here's a fervent prayer that you're right about having readers of this blog who can influence how journalism is practiced at the NYT and who may take your critiques to heart. But in the meantime, color me doubtful.
"...when the gun...suddenly went off...?" That never happens! Someone has to pull the trigger to fire. End of story. Gun safety measures ignored/laziness, etc.
"... by people whose mind contains the reputation of the NYT..."? Ann, I know you've been reading the NYT forever. But critiquing the NYT, really, how often? But kudos to you on this one. The NYT is not worried about its "reputation" only so from the online mob, which they have created. Let the NYT suffer and go the way of discredited journalism industry which they claim to be defending.
"If it was "at the camera," wouldn't it hit the lens?"
That just shows you haven't had much practice with a handgun. A lens is a small target -- not much bigger than a standard bull's eye on a typical target used at shooting ranges. At a distance of more than 15 yards, it can be hard to hit - hard enough with a .22, and very hard if it's a gun bigger than a .22 with a larger caliber bullet. Accuracy with a handgun requires practice. No idea whether Baldwin had any such proficiency in handling a handgun.
As I understand it, the director is like the CEO and the producer is like the chairman of the board. In any event, both the director and producer are part of the chain of responsibility for this fatal screw up....The laws of gravity are inflexible and decree that shit rolls downhill. It's starting to look like the armorer will be the designated fall guy, but I don't see how Baldwin and the director will escape with their reputations and careers intact....There's something creepy about those celebs who tweet that their prayers and sympathy are with the family of Halyna and with Alec at this difficult moment in his life. I don't know the extent of Baldwin's culpability, but he clearly screwed up and he's not the most sympathetic figure in this tragedy....I wonder whether negligent homicide is more damaging to an actor's career than, say, the offenses of Louis CK. TIme will tell. I always look to Hollywood for guidance on fretful moral issues.
I think TreeJoe is onto something.
The decedent was an attractive woman. Baldwin wanted her, she turned him down, he wanted revenge, to show her that nobody turns Alec Baldwin down and gets away with it. Now she's dead of a terrible "accident." He did it, but it's "not his fault." Even the NYT says so.
That's my theory, and I sticking to it until proven wrong.
It's not like it's unheard of for attractive women who get involved with leftists to end up dead.
"The Spectator on the decline and fall of the New York Times"
when the gun... suddenly went off
That's the all purpose blame the gun phrase. I've never seen a gun fire itself. The trigger needs to be pulled to release the hammer and the hammer needs to come forward. (It is possible for a muzzle loader weapon to go off while loading- if the barrel wasn't swabbed and some burning black powder left in the barrel...) I did a line of duty investigation where a young lady was shot through the heel when she kicked the semi under her aunt's sofa". Every one of the witnesses I interviewed lied and gave the exact same story. My final statement of the investigation: "I am forced to conclude that it was not in the line of duty but not due to the member's own misconduct. I recommend the Navy bill the aunt for all medical costs assumed in her care."
That was something they didn't know. If the government sees someone else has liability for a servicemember's injuries- they can go after them.
At one time, shooting someone in the heel was thought to be great way to get a discharge...
The first I knew of this incident was via the Daily Mail; their article was headlined (more or less, and there was more than one subheadline, as is their tabloid wont), 'After Shooting Alec Devotes Himself to Significant Me-Time'. Whatever the details, that sums up the contemporary entertainment industry.
Anyway you try to spin it, Baldwin pointed a gun (he didn't check) at a fellow human being and pulled the trigger. The gun didn't just "go off", they don't work that way. Even in double action revolvers, a certain amount of pressure has to be applied to the trigger for the gun to fire.
‘"Alec Baldwin was rehearsing a scene that involved pointing a revolver 'towards the camera lens'... when the gun... suddenly went off and killed the cinematographer, according to the film’s director..."
That's the most exculpatory narrative, "quoted in an affidavit released Sunday night," the NYT reports.’
That post title/opening sentence was negligently fired off. Who is saying “That’s the most exculpatory narrative”?
(1) the film’s director
(2) the affiant (Detective Cano, Althouse later tells us)
(3) the NYT
(4) Althouse
Ok, it’s Althouse. But is it the most exculpatory narrative? It puts Alec Baldwin and his actions squarely in the chain of events leading to the death of Halnya Hutchins. He’s partly responsible, that much is clear. How much of the responsibility should fall on others is still unclear, so it should be no surprise that is the subject of much of the followup reporting.
As for the NY Times, this is the type of story centered outside of New York City and Washington, DC where it can be expected to get the facts wrong a fair percentage of the time. That was how we got New York Times v. Sullivan, not quite factual reporting on a story out of Alabama. The LA Times is going to be the lead newspaper on this story.
It seems that details are starting to come out. If it was true that the Armorer brought live ammo to show off and shoot in the desert, but left some rounds in the gun when she left the set, her liability is off the chart: https://twitter.com/ellisgreg/status/1452633073690972170
Prof. A: “…This is what [you] do!” And I for one am delighted and grateful that you do it, and do it well, and I think even joyously. As was said by none other than Saul Alinsky, a good tactic is one that your people enjoy. So when your Flow Moment turns out to be the administration of a serious beat-down on the morons inhabiting the ruined shell of a once-great newspaper? That is all good: good for you, good for us, good even for the morons; because, who knows? They might learn from the beatings. We can hope.
In the meantime, you are doing the hard and dirty work of reading the NYT so that we don’t have to. Bless you!
"The gun suddenly went off."
Guns do not have agency. They are not animated by evil spirits. They are very simple tools designed to fire bullets in a desired direction. A watch does not wind itself, and revolvers will not fire without the trigger releasing the hammer.
Baldwin pulled the trigger. Maybe he didn't mean to, but he did. There's no credible way the gun would go off in the circumstances described without the trigger being pulled. Old revolvers could fire when dropped, but that didn't happen.
Depending on the type of gun, he may have had to cock it by pulling the hammer back before he pulled the trigger. That would be normal for a single-action revolver you'd see in a Western. If the firearm turns out to be a single-action then we know for sure.
This wasn't a "prop gun." If it fired a projectile that passed all the way through a person and penetrated someone behind them it's a weapon. It's indistinguishable from a gun, whatever you call it. I'm tired of hearing that this was a prop. No, it wasn't. They are lying. They are lying to protect Baldwin because otherwise it's very obvious what happened.
From the facts in the article, even if the pistol was loaded with blanks Baldwin would have been a complete jerk for firing at the cinematographer. Blanks are loud, and dangerous. Since Brandon Lee's death the norm is to never fire blanks directly at anyone.
However, Baldwin seems to have thought the gun was unloaded. This wasn't a mistake firing a real bullet instead of a blank. He fired a gun he thought was empty. If you remove the movie backdrop, this is a simple case of someone shooting another person with a gun he thought was unloaded.
He didn't check the gun himself. He was playing with a firearm without checking to see if it was loaded. That's the entire story. It was a real gun, and it did exactly what it was designed to do. Baldwin used it exactly as it was designed and built to be used.
This is a criminal case. Someone is dead, and negligence was a factor. Pulling the trigger of a firearm while pointing it at a person is negligent. Alec Baldwin seems to have committed manslaughter. That's what you are charged with when you point a loaded gun at someone and pull the trigger without meaning to shoot them. The circumstances of the movie shoot are completely irrelevant. It was just him.
Suppose someone handed me a gun, told me it was unloaded, and I then shot someone by accident. The police would not care about what I was told. They'd arrest me. And they'd be correct to do so.
The media also neglects to mention that Baldwin is the producer of the film and thus was responsible for hiring and handling any labor and safety issues and disputes. No doubt there is a strong bias. On Morning Joe this morning, always good for a laugh Mika speculated that it may have been dark and that could explain why Baldwin pointed the gun at someone.
From Don Surber's column... Finally, the Hollywood Reporter in June asked him about "Rust," which was then an upcoming production.
The news outlet asked him, "How are your gun slinging and horse-riding skills?"
Baldwin said, "They’re always at the ready. I’m an actor of the old school. So if you read my resume — my motorcycle riding, my French, juggling, my horseback riding, my gunplay — is all right at my fingertips at all times."
Sing along... Lord it's hard to be humble when you're perfect in every way!
So, Baldwin was sitting in the pews, practicing his quick cross draw, and while practicing managed to point the gun at a couple of his employees, pull the trigger, and kill one of them. Somehow that doesn’t seem to help him that much, except maybe moving it out of Depraved Heart/Mind Murder. If he was spending his wait time practicing, he probably should have been using a fake gun, or, at a minimum, a non functioning one.
That is not to say that he intentionally pointed the gun at those employees, but rather that they were where he pointed his gun, regardless of where he was maybe aiming. That, itself, is an admission of recklessness. Regardless of why you might point a gun at someone, you just don’t do it unless you are willing to kill them. And, yes, you don’t put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to shoot.*
* Ok, the latter isn’t quite as cut and dried as it is usually taught. Last spring I retook a point and shoot handgun class (I try to take it every year). It turns out that if you are 10 feet away (maybe if you are within the Tueller Drill 20 feet), it is better to focus on where you want the bullet go, than to aim there with the sights, from a self defense point of view. Just like catching and hitting balls, it actually works. When you draw, the gun goes to the upper center of your chest, where the weak hand meets and overlaps the dominant hand, and then you drive the gun forward and fire when fully extended. What I had been doing was indexing my trigger finger until fully extended, and then fingering and pulling the trigger. I noticed that the head instructor was fingering the trigger while he was driving the gun forward. I asked him about it, and he clarified - you do it that way if you intend to fire when your arms are fully extended. If your goal is to merely indicate that you could shoot, then the trigger finger should probably remain indexed along the side of the gun.
Of course, if this was a western (as suggested by the use of a revolver), then authenticity may demand that the ftrigger finger starts on the trigger, instead of being indexed along the gun, as now required by gun safety rules - which they didn’t have back in the old west. What we saw of gun handling on TV and in movies, back growing up, violated a lot of the gun safety rules that we now have. For example, can anyone here think of why spinning the gun on your finger might be a bad idea? Or, really shooting a handgun from the waist? (Or really a rifle or even a machine gun, as I watched Arnold do last night in Commando). Wyatt Earp, one of the few gunslingers from the Wild West to survive into old age and the 20th Century, is reputed to have essentially said that the shooter who takes the time to aim his shots usually wins his gun fights.
Ms. Althouse you are certainly read by people whose mind contains the reputation of the NYT. The NYT has a reputation with me. But I think you were referring to people who might be influenced to do better and who had a personal or professional concern about improving--or at least maintaining a good reputation for the NYT. I'm not one of those people.
At one time I respected the NYT. I read it daily for several years. That respect rose from the demonstrated practice of its editors and reporters to promptly get to the point of story. Their stories were short and crisp, and respectful of the reader's time. By contrast my main "local" paper, the Los Angeles Times let its stories run on forever, frequently "jumping" a single news article to as many as five or six different pages. The deluge of print advertising that once appeared in the Los Angeles Times has since disappeared. The deluge supported the bad habit--the Times needed five or six column inches of "news" on a jump page to balance out the 95% of page devoted to advertising.
But time--and journalism practices and ethics--have changed. Editorial opinion has crept (some might say leapt) from the op ed pages into the "news" section of many newspapers--the NYT included. And that is deleterious to the reputation of any newspaper. And as for my reference to a scorpion. I know scorpions don't read. But their sting is reflexive--that's what they do. And the "journalists" at many major newspapers don't think about their "sting" anymore than the scorpion does.
"Ann, I believe Skeptical Voter is referring to Aesop's fable of the scorpion and the frog (?) crossing the river."
I know.
@Owen
Thanks
Washington Post and the New York Times are todays National Enquirer. The amount of Bullshit they report on is very similiar. Modern day tabloids.
“ They say Baldwin was performing a cross draw, which is using your off side do draw the gun from a holster on the dominant side“
Usually, but can be vise vera…
". If it was true that the Armorer brought live ammo to show off and shoot in the desert, but left some rounds in the gun when she left the set, her liability is off the chart:"
The reason you ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded (and therefore check it yourself) is that people screw up all the time. Baldwin was the last line of defense against other people's stupidity. The gun was in his hands, not the armorer's, when he pulled the trigger and killed someone. When he was handed the weapon, he became responsible for its safe use. While the armorer certainly should receive some blame (and never work in the business again), Baldwin is ultimately responsible for the woman's death.
I think we are going to find that safety protocols used on big budget movies weren’t followed on this low budget movie. For one, it’s reported that cast and/or crew were using the guns from the movie for target practice. That’s the sort of perk you might give people working on a low budget movie, where on a big budget movie the guns would be locked up. Also, replacing the small union crew with a smaller non-union crew on the morning of the incident effectively turned it into an even lower budget movie than it started out as, and the unions are the ones who largely make and enforce the safety rules in the movie industry. Actors in low budget movies probably know that they have to do things themselves, like double-checking that the gun you are given is not loaded, which actors in big movies can rely on well-trained people to do.
So big star Alec Baldwin may have been in reckless disregard of being in a low budget movie. Is that a crime he can be prosecuted for? Will he get kicked out of his union? I think one can assume he will have some civil liability.
“Gun don't do that, particularly modern reproductions of the iconic Colt 1873 Single Action Army. Firing this pistol requires two distinct and deliberate actions performed in order. First, one must cock the hammer to its full-cock position. Only then will the trigger function at all. Uncocked, the SAA's trigger does nothing. Each subsequent shot requires the same two deliberate actions.”
I had missed that, since I only own semiautomatic handguns, which I carry cocked with a round in the chamber. To do that safely, you have to be hyper aware any time the handgun is not safely holstered (and esp when holstering).
But my one observation/question is that shooters in westerns often fanned the hammers on their pistols, essentially, I think, bypassing the trigger. If Baldwin had been sitting in a pew, practicing for cross drawing and shooting from a seated position, he may have been fanning the hammer, as we would possibly expect him to do, given the hundreds of times that we have seen that in westerns.
The learned discussions of how to shoot when shooting a scene are interesting. But the original story was that B was goofing around and pointed the gun at the two victims and pulled the trigger, apparently believing it was empty. Or, loonier, believing it had a legitimate blank and, for some reason, there was no risk.
11B 71542
Of course, if this was a western (as suggested by the use of a revolver), then authenticity may demand that the ftrigger finger starts on the trigger,
------------
how do you "cock" the /hammer/ ready the gun to shoot if your finger is on trigger?
not a gun person : just thinking of the mechanics
Q: how long does it take to learn to draw a gun and shoot self in foot?
This is the theater equivalent of Carl Mays killing Ray Chapman with a pitched baseball. Outside the ballpark, it's unthinkable to throw a hard ball 90 mph a few inches past someone's head. In the park, it's an ordinary and expected part of the game, and sometimes people get hurt. The only way a pitcher can possibly face liability is if he deliberately aims at someone's head; that's why Mays wasn't criminally charged.
I think the same is true of Baldwin; if he was doing what everyone on set expected him to be doing, and he had no knowledge of any live rounds in the gun, I don't see how he can be criminally charged.
I love the actor Alec Baldwin, but he's a Power in our film culture and I hate to see the NYTimes so chicken-hearted about speaking Truth not even to him but just in his general vicinity. The swaddling and weasel-words in the article Althouse quotes can't hide that on the set of Rust observance of safe-handling protocols for firearms was beneath lax, downright slovenly. The series of blunders that put a lethal round into a gun to be used for filming, and put that gun unexamined into the hand of an actor on the taking set, culminated in that actor's pulling the trigger of a gun in whose harmlessness he had absolutely no reason to trust. Deadly.
I hope you will understand that it takes nothing away from the sorrow I feel for the death, the needless death, of Halyna Hutchins, to say that I feel sympathy for Alec Baldwin. But he is responsible for more than pulling the trigger at the end of a series of wrong turnings. His responsibility lies at the start of that series. The director Joel Souza established careless gun handling as O.K. on his shoot -- and the producer Alec Baldwin tolerated it. That makes him responsible, and I've seen no sign that he's trying to shirk that responsibility, but every sign that the NYTimes and other journalism outlets are trying to shirk it for him.
It's the story of a grandfather who helps a 13-year-old boy run away after an accidental killing.
--------
an easy out for Alec has to do is identify as 13-year-old boy and this situation becomes juvenile delinquency
Single action revolver "suddenly went off?" No, that's, mechanically, not how that particular device works. It doesn't function in a way that it can just "go off." Deliberate actions must be taken to cause it to go off. Those actions might be accidental, but they must be done by a person.
You must cock the hammer and then pull or at least in some way engage/touch the trigger. Alternately if it's a very-old or improperly-made model you could very firmly strike the back of an uncocked hammer over top of a loaded cylinder, but that's pretty unlikely. In no case can a single action revolver simply "go off" on its own.
The show must go on. What better way to honor Ms. Hutchins and her work as a cinematographer than to continue with the movie. They can incorporate the scenes she had already filmed in the finished product. Baldwin, now burdened with the heaviness of his sorrows, can bring added gravitas to his role. I sense Oscar in the neighborhood. A standing ovation for Alec when he accepts the award on behalf of Hutchins and the others who later perished while completing the movie. Easily the most feel good moment since Polanski won his award. They can use this movie to demonstrate the horrors of gun ownership and the courage and determination of Hollywood people to dramatize those horrors no matter what the pain to those involved in the shooting of such films.
The available evidence is pointing toward Baldwin pulling the trigger.
That makes it negligent homicide at best, a crime. Since BALDWIN had a legal duty to check the weapon that he was holding, whatever someone else told him about the weapon is irrelevant. He was either negligent or reckless. Either negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter.
See? I told you. Epstein didn't kill himself. The rope killed Epstein.
Gun [sic] don't do that, particularly modern reproductions of the iconic Colt 1873 Single Action Army. Firing this pistol requires two distinct and deliberate actions performed in order. First, one must cock the hammer to its full-cock position. Only then will the trigger function at all.
@Quaestor, you are correct, for a gun that has been well maintained.
I've competed with Uberti reproductions of the Colt 1873 Single Action Army. As the movie "Rust" is set in 1880, it is safe to assume that the Colt model 1873 is the gun in question. Here is a good description of how the trigger and hammer interact (though the actual Colt and reproductions have a conical firing pin molded into the face of the hammer). If the sear is broken (in which case the armorer should have sent it to a gunsmith for repair) or if the notch in the hammer mechanism is worn down (ditto) then the slightest jolt will cause the hammer to fall forward and discharge the gun, and that's if the sear catches at all.
Or, the gun could have been modified to a very light trigger pull for competition. My Uberti reproductions (since sold) had a very light trigger pull of 24 ounces. Little more than a twitch of the trigger finger once the gun was cocked would cause it to discharge. I still compete these days, but in black powder events using a cap and ball Remington reproduction (see the ending scene of "Pale Rider." The trigger pull on that gun is 3 pounds 12 ounces, which is a bit safer.
If there was any evidence that the gun is defective -- and there seems to have been ample evidence of it -- then it should have been sent to a gunsmith for repair before being used again. And I might add, that whenever I am handed a revolver the first thing I do is point it in a safe direction and either swing the cylinder out (if it is a modern handgun) or open the loading gate, put the hammer on half-cock, and spin the cylinder to make sure it is empty.
Achilles said...
It isn't bad to read the NYT's.
But if you call other more honest and accurate sources of information "trashy" that is an obvious problem for us.
The NYT's is the definition of trashy.
-----------
but it is nicely laundered trash >>> so their readers don't have to hold your nose.
he may have been fanning the hammer, as we would possibly expect him to do, given the hundreds of times that we have seen that in westerns.
---------
don't the mechanics of gun firing still require the shooter to hold down the trigger all the time while fanning?
good exposition of cross drawing a gun
JeanE there doesn’t appear to be an answer to you’re question about the travel of the bullet. The account I read said the DP was next to the camera and the director was behind her. The bullet went through her chest and bounced off his clavicle. He was treated and released. None of the other facts I’ve seen presented conflict with that account of the shot. With so many witnesses and the physical evidence cops collected we will eventually have a clear story…I hope.
I have the perfect excuse for Alec Baldwin
Gun Violence!
don't the mechanics of gun firing still require the shooter to hold down the trigger all the time while fanning?
Yes.
All of our speculation about what went on, how the scene to be filmed was set up, whether the scene was meant to involve shooting or just pointing the gun -- all this and more speculation is still without any real basis. What? A reporter's paraphrase -- of a detective's affidavit -- summarizing what he was told -- by informants who may or may not have witnessed the events. They might have been describing what they read in the call-sheet for the day's work, or scuttlebutt they heard in intervals of their own jobs elsewhere on the busy location. All preliminary sketchwork, not sufficient to predict the final picture. Even the word "pew" might be wrong -- for instance:
"Alec was sitting in the church..."
"In a pew?"
"In a what?"
"Pew -- where the congregation sits in church."
"Oh, yeah, in a pew..."
The informant might never have heard the word before. The church in the movie might have rows of chairs, or ranks of backless benches. But now the informant has been told that "where the congregation sits" is called "a pew," so that gets into the report.
Most every detail so far is like this, subject to change. Our commentary full of "I picture it this way," "No that way," flights of fancy, nothing more.
Post a Comment