In charges set to be formally filed by the end of the month, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed will each be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in Hutchins’ death.
ADDED: From the NYT article on the subject:
Andrea Reeb, a special prosecutor on the case, said... “We’re trying to definitely make it clear that everybody’s equal under the law, including A-list actors like Alec Baldwin.... And we also want to make sure that the safety of the film industry is addressed and things like this don’t happen again.”
Posts
60 comments:
"charges set to be formally filed by the end of the month"
That's two weeks. Why not file charges today?
We’ll he’s guilty, so better late than never…
Who is this "Armorer" and why are they being charged with involuntary manslaughter?
Are they sufficiently not-white-male so they can get the jury to let Baldwin off?
Will they be tried separately? Why are they mentioned together?
The only person that "has a job" with a gun is the person carrying the gun. Telling someone a gun is "cold" doesn't mean anything. You pick up a gun you clear it or check it's status. Period.
Baldwin killed that woman. His actions since then have been depraved. Trying to reduce his responsibility here is gross.
This is really silly stuff.
In following from rampant theft to include drug stores with guards and products locked in security boxes, I'm waiting for California to indict the gun and move for New Mexico to set Alec free. Guns kill people because of their mere existence, people don't kill people. Killing is caused by the "structural violence" and implicit biases of USA laws.
Oh, but maybe Alec must pay for all gun crimes because he's a white male...?
Adding to the old trope:
"Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my gun."
"Alec Baldwin's gun killed more people than all the guns owned by 100,000,000 people."
That’s fair. By doing things quickly and on the cheap they may have been negligent to the point where someone died.
I hope a plea deal can occur. This seems from my vantage point to be a waste of time/money.
Another conspiracy theory. That prop Colt Peacemaker is clearly a q-anon supporter. We have the gun's emails and social media history, and visitors logs of when the gun visited Mar A Lago. Security camera footage has also been found of the Peacemaker planting SCI docs at the Biden house.
Open and shut.
I just took a quick look, and involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico is basically negligent homicide, which seems reasonable given what we know of this shooting. Killing by carelessness rather than by design, or in the heat of anger. It carries a sentence of up to 18 months in prison.
What about the Assistant Director that was wounded? No charges filed against that collateral injury?
We will never hear the real story.
I was surprised to see that the film has restarted production. The killing cast such a pall on it that I cannot imagine anyone wanting to work on it or see it.
Long overdue
This is why we have the Second Amendment.
... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Still no Twilight Amendment. A "burden" must be settled in a court of law or in self-defense.
About time.
Manslaughter? It should be several counts of premeditated murder.
One, Baldwin was a producer on the movie. He has moral and legal responsibility for the corners cut in hiring an unqualified amateur as armorer. He also has oversight responsibility over how the set was run. Then, he was responsible for checking that revolver as the guy handling it, and he obviously did not. It's been proven he had to pull the trigger; there were no mechanical defects.
The incompetent armorer put herself forward as being both qualified and able to act as armorer, then neglected her duties on the job in so many ways that it's not even funny. Again, for her? Manslaughter is a joke; she's as responsible for what happened as Baldwin is.
Guns are not toys; you set up a situation where you fire a live round at the camera crew, that goes beyond "accident" or "unintentional". To create that situation required multiple steps of sloth, incompetency, and outright dereliction.
It should be murder, with depraved indifference. Not sure how they define that in state law down there, but manslaughter? That's a damn joke.
Baldwin is a smug, irritating, liberal tool. But I have a lot of sympathy. Guy spends his entire adult life being handed guns and pretending to shoot people with those guns. Then, one day, the goddamn thing kills the woman standing in front of him.
I understand all the reasons it's his fault; I was in the military. But it's also your fault if somebody cuts you off and then brake-checks you, and you rearend him. And I'd have a lot of sympathy for you if that happened.
Baldwin has already been acquitted on CNN.
This is awesome and I want every cop held to the same standard.
New Mexico is a Democrat state. I'm sure Baldwin has donated enough money since the shooting to make it all go away. This is theatrics to fool the rubes.
Standard is reckless. Enhancement because gun involved. Why higher penalty because reckless gun use rather than, say, auto? Bargaining chip? I'm still dubious state can prove Baldwin reckless beyond a reasonable doubt when it was a job situation and an arms specialist was hired and on set to handle guns for the actor. Perhaps there is evidence Baldwin as producer knew that guns were not being handled safely on set by the specialist. Seems easier case against the other defendant. Her job to safely handle guns on set.
The prosecutor was quoted on NPR this morning as saying that they may never know how the live rounds got on the set. Count me as skeptical that either Baldwin or the Armorer will get much more than a fine and probation. The Armorer's career will be ruined and Baldwin will suffer much humiliation, which I will greatly enjoy.
The accident was a very serious screwup by Baldwin and the armorer. Baldwin has more responsibility as the executive producer.
How many movies and TV shows have used guns and gun shots without incident over the past 50 years? 5 million? How many people have died? 2?
That should provide some idea of the extreme magnitude of this screwup.
Blogger Patrick said...
“I was surprised to see that the film has restarted production.”
It’s the power of money. Lots of it.
Baldwin reached a settlement with Halyna’s husband.
From ABC News: “The statement from Matthew Hutchins, released by his attorney Brian Panish, also said he will now take over as executive producer of the film, which will resume filming in January with all of the principal actors.
"I have no interest in engaging in recriminations or attribution of blame (to the producers or Mr. Baldwin)," he said. "All of us believe Halyna's death was a terrible accident. I am grateful that the producers and the entertainment community have come together to pay tribute to Halyna's final work."
I wouldn’t be surprised if Halyna’s husband didn’t appear as a character witness for Baldwin.
It's about fucking time. 456 days and it's still just a rumor of an indictment. Jeebus Christ on a stick.
There have been countless murder cases which required tireless, dogged detective work to uncover enough evidence to bring an indictment against an alleged murderer, but the Rust killing must set some sort of humiliating record for a nation founded on the concept of equal justice. The identities of the only two plausible suspects were known to New Mexico law enforcement from the first day. The absence of any plausible malice aforethought was known within a few weeks if not few a days. By December 2021 the only plausible crime was known to be negligent homicide and the only plausible suspects to bring before a grand jury were known to be Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and Alec "Big Fucking Jerk" Baldwin.
The case against Gutierrez-Reed will hinge on the presence of live .45 Long Colt ammunition on the film set. I can see no justification for the recreational shooting that allegedly took place on the Rust set. That should have been immediately curtailed by the director, by contract the absolute authority on all matters pertaining. But that was Joel Souza, one of the victims. Isn't the presence of live ammo on the set ultimately his responsibility? Wouldn't it be nice to have been the proverbial fly on the wall during those target practice sessions? I'd wager it was Baldwin himself conducting the bullet music, what else would the Most Accomplished Man in Hollywood be up to? There wasn't a more authoritative go-to guy on the care and feeding of the Colt Single Action Army in the Southwest. Consequently, Mister Souza could rest assured -- until he couldn't.
The case against Baldwin isn't or oughtn't to be nearly so murky. If any member of the Althouse commentariat, including Robert Cook, had been behind that Pietta 1873 Gunfighter he'd have been cooling his heels in Las Cruces for the last ten months with about eighty-six more to go before parole. So how come Balwin's out and about? Will he plead idiocy and throw himself on the mercy of the court. Though he's a genuine idiot and a notoriously arrogant one, he's also rich and powerfully well-connected in the Democratic party. Blue New Mexico may indict him for appearance's sake, but it will never convict him. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, however, should refrain from making any long-term plans. So much for "liberty and justice for all".
North writes, "The Armorer's career will be ruined and Baldwin will suffer much humiliation, which I will greatly enjoy."
Don't count your enjoyment chicks before they hatch. Baldwin will escape any homicide conviction, and thereby garner a heaping dollop of gangster chic, just the thing to enliven that obese oldster's moribund movie métier.
Baldwin learns "reasonable gun control" the hard way. It was his Choice.
My understanding is that on a set, the armorer has the responsibility of making sure the right weapon and, if any, prop ammo is used, it's handed to the actor, and they're to do only what the scene is called for; I've been told that if the actor checked the gun for loaded, the armorer has to go over it all again to make sure nothing has changed. So if live ammo went into the gun, it's the armorer's fault it got to the actor.
And we know there was live ammo, and the gun was not modified to be unable to use live, because some people had previously used it for target practice. So live ammo on the set where it could get mixed in with blanks/dummies. So the armorer has a huge responsibility in this.
Baldwin's actions, that's for them to present and the court to argue.
Do or do not, there is no try. Unless you mean doing the trial, in which case you are sending the message of equal justice, perhaps if you brought the charges a year ago. Are there new facts developed in the past 12 months? Or did you give up getting a plea deal when you were trying to give unequal justice?
Blogger MadisonMan said...
"I hope a plea deal can occur. This seems from my vantage point to be a waste of time/money."
Yes, recklessly killing someone is definitely something that should result in a small fine and perhaps an apology. Otherwise, the courts might take their eye off the ball on more pressing matters.....
Hutchins might have had to make that statement by the terms of the agreement, but that doesn't mean he'd want to testify for Baldwin.
I don't want to think that a New Mexico jury would let Baldwin off because he was a Democrat. I'd like to believe that they could decide based on the facts or that they were as sick of Baldwin as I am. There's a lot of difference between Hollywood Democrat celebrities and New Mexico Democrat voters, but the way things are in the country now, sure, they just might be less inclined to convict Alec Baldwin than a Republican.
And we also want to make sure that the safety of the film industry is addressed and things like this don’t happen again.
Noble sentiments. Would have been even more noble 400 or more days ago.
I shoot and I've had extensive training though not LEO/Mil.
The reality is:
1) This was not a "prop" gun. It was a gun. Capable of firing cartridges/bullets.
2) The only responsibility at the moment a gun is fired belongs to the person who is shooting the gun.
3) There is a reason we have the four rules of gun safety:
a) The gun is always loaded.
b) do not point the gun at any target you are not prepared to destroy.
c) keep the finger off the trigger until you are prepared to shoot.
d) consider what is behind your target (there is a risk you will shoot other objects around your target).
There is no exception for "I was on a movie set." There is no excuse of "he told me it wasn't loaded." EVERYONE in the gun community agrees universally - it doesn't matter what someone tells you. It is YOUR responsibility as the gun handler to know your weapon and know the rules.
I'm sure he did not know it was loaded. That's the reason he's charged for homicide not murder. It doesn't matter if he knew or not. He was handling the weapon when it discharged. All responsibility belongs to him. Did others contribute? Sure. But they did not shoot the gun.
Big wager on no felony for Baldwin.
And it took this long, why?
and they're to do only what the scene is called for
I'm pretty sure the scene didn't call for him to point a gun at the cinematographer and the director.
It wasn't a complete loss for Baldwin. The DA described him as an A-list celebrity. I wonder if his PR people paid her off.
It wasn't a complete loss for Baldwin. The DA described him as an A-list celebrity. That must have been very gratifying.
Readering: I'm still dubious state can prove Baldwin reckless beyond a reasonable doubt when it was a job situation and an arms specialist was hired and on set to handle guns for the actor.
Holy shite, Rendering, this statement is stupid even by your standards and that's saying something.
It’s my understanding that movie sets where guns are on hand have regular safety meetings on the set l. The producer took advantage of a rookie armorer to unilaterally cancel those safety meetings. So the producer bears a great deal of responsibility.
Oh, Alec Baldwin was the producer.
I'd be curious to know in how many movies Baldwin's character actually did point and fire a gun. I assume he had some roles like that, but it wasn't every movie by any means.
I don't think he'll get off because he's a dem. If he gets off, it'll be because he's famous, the jury will be star-struck, and they'll expect that, if they acquit him, he'll take a selfie with them.
From LA Times:
Baldwin’s attorney, Luke Nikas, called the decision to file criminal charges “a terrible miscarriage of justice.”
“Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun — or anywhere on the movie set,” he said. “He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win.”
Baldwin has long proclaimed his innocence.
It was not his responsibility as an actor, he said, to ensure the pistol was not loaded with live ammunition, which is normally banned on all movie sets.
Assistant Director Dave Halls — who has agreed to plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon — had told Baldwin that it was a “cold gun,” meaning its cylinder had been checked to ensure it was safe to use as a prop, according to the actor.
It was Hutchins herself, Baldwin said, who told him to point the gun toward her as she was plotting a camera angle in a small church on the Bonanza Creek Ranch outside Santa Fe.
"This was not a 'prop' gun. It was a gun."
On one thing let us all be clear: Prop does not mean fake, artificial, illusory, or non-functional -- not now or ever. It's theatre-speak for property, and refers to anything non-human (assume for a moment non-human excludes actors, a stretch but rhetorically essential) an actor is directed to use, handle, or carry. If Alec Baldwin is directed to sit in a chair, that chair is considered a prop. Baldwin being hefty, that chair ought to be fully functional unless low comedy is the aim.
Readering: "I'm still dubious state can prove Baldwin reckless beyond a reasonable doubt when it was a job situation and an arms specialist was hired and on set to handle guns for the actor."
Well known leftists can literally shoot women in the face in broad daylight in front of witnesses and not lose any lefty supporters.
Blogger readering said...
[...] I'm still dubious state can prove Baldwin reckless beyond a reasonable doubt when it was a job situation and an arms specialist was hired and on set to handle guns for the actor. Perhaps there is evidence Baldwin as producer knew that guns were not being handled safely on set by the specialist. Seems easier case against the other defendant. Her job to safely handle guns on set.
1/19/23, 12:54 PM
...
It's the responsibility of the person pulling the trigger. Not the gun manufacturer. Or the person who loaded the gun. Or handed off the gun. The armorer did not pull the trigger. It seems to me the person who pulled the trigger is responsible. The person who handed him a loaded gun and the person who said it was not loaded are contributory. But only one person pulled the trigger.
BALDWIN held the gun... BALDWIN aimed it at her... BALDWIN pulled the trigger... BALDWIN should have checked the gun... and BALDWIN should not have pointed it at her. So BALDWIN is the one who killed her. And so he should be charged!!!
It is not difficult to check a Single Action revolver like he held. No reason for him to a) aim it at her and b) check it.
Cock the hammer two clicks... open the gate... rotate the cylinder while looking at each round (and being a 'cold gun' there should be NO ROUNDS), close the gate and fully cock the hammer then let it down.
Simple folks.... I don't care what 'rules' they say Hollywood had. He should have checked the gun... and he should not have AIMED IT AT HER!!!
Not disagreeing with anyone on "blame". But a workplace accident in which criminal liability sought. It will be analyzed in those terms. I wrote at the outset that I think his knowledge as a producer may turn out to affect criminal culpability. But don't see jury instructions being written in terms of posts here.
Regarding the timeline: Per local radio here in NM-the SF Sheriff's Office relied on the FBI for the forensic analysis of the gun. The FBI gave the final report to the SFSO Oct 27. So it took the SFSO 2.5 months after receiving the report to refer the charges to the DA. The court will now do what they do which typically takes two to four weeks to set a hearing date. Most of us here in NM that I know and the local radio station I listen to are surprised charges are being filed. We figured the local politicians would not want to upset the movie industry that is now here and is pretty popular and lucrative.
Any one ever consider maybe Baldwin PUT the bullet in the gun with the intent to murder that woman?
Makes a real good Columbo mystery, right?
There is mystery in sex and conception... in tools and effects. This is why we need reasonable regulations to curb individual dignity, individual conscience, mortal gods and goddesses to rule.
"But a workplace accident in which criminal liability sought."
Happens a lot. No criminal intent, but recklessness above and beyond mere negligence. Like, "so damned careless it oughta be a crime".
Slap on the wrist. Back to making schlock movies in no time.
In the early Seventies, at Ft. Jackson, after a rain, the mortar cadre, prepping for the next class, settled the baseplates. That's done by dropping a couple of rounds per tube at max charge.
Possibly the first time in thirty years ,they hadn't cleared the range. Turns out there was a working party down range from the direct fire site. Pretty bad results.
There's a reason working with guns requires an unnecessarily severe case of OCD.
It's not like a club. It's stored energy set to go off at the slightest--correctly placed--impact.
That said, given that AB had been handed--how many--guns asserted to be "cold", he was entitled to believe this one was cold. After all, the official in charge told him so.
There is a legal doctrine--at least where I used to work--that when an entity acts consisently in such a way that others can reasonably depend on whatever it is continuing, the entity is liable for unfortunate results if they stop doing it, even though it was unofficial and never advertised as something they promised to do.
Nevertheless, the assurance notwithstanding, AB was required to check the gun.
I understand we're supposed to hate on Baldwin just because. But what he was guilty of was not being seriously OCD about something which had never happened to him in his life. That's a very bad thing, but it's not a purposeful, moral failing. It can, however, see Fort Jackson, have the same result.
Peripheraly, I'd like to make the case that stored energy is a whole other thing. It is not instinctive to deal with it as we do the rest of the natural world. Nobody "sets off" a club. Dealting with any kind of stored energy requires a kind of OCD.
This is a tragic accident from any angle. A modest fine should be sufficient. I am not a fan of Mr. Baldwin's politics, but that is beside the point.
Baldwin will be hosting SNL this time next year.
The POC armorer will do some jail time.
Same as it ever was.
A collision after being cut off and/ or brake checked may not be your fault. You might have trouble overcoming the presumption of fault.
mtp said...
Baldwin is a smug, irritating, liberal tool. But I have a lot of sympathy. Guy spends his entire adult life being handed guns and pretending to shoot people with those guns. Then, one day, the goddamn thing kills the woman standing in front of him.
Every single time he's been handed a gun, he should have checked said gun to make sure it wasn't loaded.
it takes 5 seconds, and it damn well should have been automatic.
That it wasn't is why I have no sympathy for him
I understand all the reasons it's his fault; I was in the military. But it's also your fault if somebody cuts you off and then brake-checks you, and you rearend him. And I'd have a lot of sympathy for you if that happened.
Sure, me too. Unless you first cut the other guy off and then flipped him off, after which you slowed down to waste his time.
And that's metaphorically what Baldwin did.
Firehand said...
My understanding is that on a set, the armorer has the responsibility of making sure the right weapon and, if any, prop ammo is used, it's handed to the actor, and they're to do only what the scene is called for; I've been told that if the actor checked the gun for loaded, the armorer has to go over it all again to make sure nothing has changed. So if live ammo went into the gun, it's the armorer's fault it got to the actor.
Sorry, but that's bullshit.
Even if the claim was true, then the proper behavior would be
1: Armorer hands you a gun
2: You open the gun while the armorer is still there, and verify it's not loaded / loaded with a blank
3: You close up the gun, then the armorer goes away
No excuse
readering said...
It was Hutchins herself, Baldwin said, who told him to point the gun toward her as she was plotting a camera angle in a small church on the Bonanza Creek Ranch outside Santa Fe.
Did she tell him to pull the trigger?
Did she tell him to put his finger ON the trigger?
No?
Then it's still Baldwin's fault.
Richard said...
I understand we're supposed to hate on Baldwin just because
A guy killed a woman because of his clearly negligent actions. And you turn that into "just because"
But what he was guilty of was not being seriously OCD about something which had never happened to him in his life.
The whole POINT of being OCD about the 4 rules of gun handling is to make sure that what happened DOESNT happen to you.
So yes, we are hold Baldwin responsible for the fact that his failure to follow the rules caused him to kill another human being who was doing nothing wrong
That's a very bad thing, but it's not a purposeful, moral failing. It can, however, see Fort Jackson, have the same result.
That's why it's involuntary manslaughter. because it wasn't "purposeful."
But if he hadn't been acting like an idiot, he wouldn't have killed her
And that's why he should go to jail
Post a Comment