Manslaughter charge for Alec Baldwin in 'Rust' set shooting

there was no intent to shoot much less kill

Involuntary manslaughter requires only negligence or recklessness. It will depend on the detailed facts at the scene that you and I are not familiar with. I don't understand how MAGA has anything to do with this case one way or another.

because he used to play Trump on SNL and never in a positive light. Plus he is "hollywood".

As for negligence that would be hard to prove against the actor who thought he had a prop in his hand, not a loaded gun.

is that he was a producer for the film and ok with the decision about using real guns that were supposed to shoot blanks.

He was also at least partly responsible for approving the hiring of the set armorer. There were reports that some crew members were playing around with live ammunition in the guns when they were not in use on the set. I don't know if that is fact or rumor. But, if true, a safety conscious producer would not allow it, if he knew about it. Some crew members walked off the set in protest before the shooting accident happened.

I like Baldwin as an actor and have enjoyed his films. But it looks like he was lax in his responsibility on the set. However, we don't know all the details and have to wait for the trial to reveal them.

even if they did he should still have had someone follow up on it.

It will come out in the trial, but I don't think Baldwin had much input into crew hiring and supervision. Those jobs can fall to other producers, production manager, production coordinator, safety officer, special effects coordinator, and prop master.

Sure, he "fired" the gun. but that gun was handed to him by a specialist who called out "cold", meaning it was full of blanks.

It wasn't, but how would an actor know that?

Why are they charging him? Are they charging him as the producer, and thus the person responsible for the set or as the actor who fired the shots?

That's the only explanation for this I can think of.

This hasn't been well reported on, but the Democratic District Attorney named a hardcore Republican-- Andrea Reeb to be the special prosecutor:


https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/19/arts/rust-shooting-charges-alec-baldwin.html

So, I'm not wearing tin foil, and given she is prosecuting, she doesn't have to have an unbiased attitude but it would be nice not to use this for political advancement...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217594615

I was responding to the "MAGAT D.A." comment.

On edit:
Above link is incorrect. Correct link:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217573506

Republican state representative. Again, once you make the decision to prosecute, the biases of the prosecutor (or in this case, the special prosecutor) don't really make a difference, but for me, at least, the motivations do IF they include using it to propel for further political office. I read a couple of editorials in the Santa Fe New Mexican that alluded to that. Who knows...?

This the thread I was thinking of:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217573506

I want be clear, I was not defending the prosecutor in any way. I was only addressing the post that suggested that the Democratic DA might be a MAGAT.

when she remarked in a somewhat derisive way about 'Hollywood stars' getting away with things before the decision to prosecute was supposedly made.

Tough and incredibly sad situation... everyone would like to have a single villain be responsible, I just think there are not enough checks and balances throughout the entire industry.

While I believe in accountability, this could so readily bend more toward scapegoating. We shall see. Nothing can bring that poor woman back.

I don't remember the details, but I think he said something that gave them an opening.

There was definitely a breakdown in how a gun capable of firing blanks should have been handled. The fact that it was a live round that should never have been on the set makes it even worse (that is all on the armorer).

I don't think they have a theory yet. You are right he is potentially more responsible as a producer, but there are other producers that would be more responsible.

If they think there is cumulative guilt by being both the actor who fired the weapon and the producer, then they are wrong. That have to make a complete case in either role.

Has a Supreme Court decision from 70 years ago stating that it matters not how the gun became loaded, or who may have loaded it, only that it was loaded and the person fired it without due care or circumspect for involuntary manslaughter charges to apply. I don't believe a jury will convict him, but by the letter of the law, Alec has a tough uphill climb ahead of him. I hope he has a good legal team.

That wasn't Alec Baldwin. Why was there a real bullet in a prop gun on a movie set? How did that happen? I've heard people speculating that Trump was behind this because he was pissed off at Alec Baldwin for portraying him as a fool on SNL and wanted to ruin his career.

All it took for Trump to decide to run for president was a joke about him told by Obama at the White House Correspondent's dinner. He is a very vengeful person.

I have learned that whatever the worst thing you can think about Trump and his spawn and ilk have done and are capable of doing, multiply it by 1,000 and you'll get closer to the truth.

his own ammo. There were several other live rounds mixed in with dummies. It is hard to tell a live round from a dummy when it is in a revolver. You either have to dry fire it six times or look at each round to ensure that the primer has been used or that there is no primer.


The armorer removed the spent round after the shooting thus destroying potential evidence. I have not seen pictures of the live rounds and the dummies, and I would be real curious to see what they looked like.

Then they better take a very close look at all the industrial accidents in the state.

The armorer, the individuals who hired her, and the the individual who supervised her are the most responsible (along with the Assistant Director who pled out but can't keep his story straight about checking the gun. The armorer was supposed to open the gate of the revolver and spin it showing that each end of the dummy rounds had a spent primer or no primer and/or dry fired the gun six times). Ideally this should have been done by the armorer with Baldwin, but because of Covid protocols and a less than stellar safety process it wasn't. The 1AD represented the gun as being safe (cold meaning it didn't have a blank and should never have had an actual round).

Baldwin could have dry fired the gun six times in a safe direction as well, but how many times do actors given a weapon capable of firing blanks for a scene actually do this? He also could have taken exception to pointing the weapon at the crew, but there is more culpability with the director and the other production staff members to ensure that didn't happen than Baldwin who is following directions including pulling the hammer back on the gun (he said he didn't pull the trigger, but the FBI demonstrated the gun wouldn't fire without a trigger pull, but the trigger and hammer are very close together so he could have easily done it and not been aware of it).

There is a chance Baldwin in his role as producer made some of the decisions to cut corners on safety, but my understanding that he wasn't responsible for that part of the movie. There were at least five other producers on set at the time including producers from the production company that hired the armorer. Why weren't they charged as well?

that do not automatically result in "checks and balances." but rather near-total delegation of responsibilities. Thus the actor is trusting the armorer and the other experts completely (ignoring for the moment Baldwin's dual role as actor AND producer--the latter perhaps more in title only, but... )

I get why this would bother people. I get why this would bother those conscientious gun owners who all bemoan anyone pointing a gun at someone else unless under any circumstances and certainly not if you have not checked the gun yourself. Well, I think this is not a direct comparison on a movie set but still, I'm going to leave that for now.

But what most strikes me is this unwillingness to acknowledge the dependence on others for both their expertise and that they actually did their job. I think to my time in surgery when I was totally dependent on those surgical techs and nurses to have properly sterilized the equipment and instruments, the anesthesiologist to have chosen the proper drugs and administered them effectively (and have done a proper pre-op assessment/exam) and every single person along the chain of events. No one person can oversee the entire team's work. You have to trust in their expertise and professionalism that they did/do their job. This is but one example. But, it is one that I think the average person doesn't really encounter--the life-and-death delegation of responsibilities.

So, maybe film sets should not be like that. Maybe every actor and every person on the set should be weapons trained to a very high degree that a gun brought on the scene can be individually checked by a dozen or more people---including the end recipient, the actor--who all sign to verify. It would be costly to ensure all that training and validation, but maybe that is just what has to happen if real guns are to be used AT ALL. But, I'm struck that there are many life-and-death examples that many don't consider where that doesn't occur because we do trust the members of our team and very real practicalities require we continue to do so. And that alternative scenario is not (to my knowledge) how movie and tv film sets have worked up to now. The delegation of responsibilities has occurred. Actors were not necessarily expected to be gun experts. As bothered as I am by this entire episode, it does feel a bit like the actor in this case may be held to a standard that reflects how we WISH that it had been rather than what it was.

in the future is to ban the use of real guns on sets. Technology is advanced enough to do realistic simulations. I have read of at least one California legislator who is proposing a bill to make live guns illegal on sets.

None of this helps Baldwin, though, or brings back the unfortunate victim.

Your comment:

'Maybe every actor and every person on the set should be weapons trained to a very high degree that a gun brought on the scene can be individually checked by a dozen or more people---including the end recipient, the actor--who all sign to verify. "

It takes about an hour to learn the basics of gun safety and one can get the training on line. It's a simple thing to handle the gun as if it's loaded which is what one always does even if a dozen qualified and highly trained people checked it. That's one of the four basic rules that any adult of sound mind can learn in a very short time.

So the rules are a bit different in that case. I do agree that no gun capable of firing blanks or live rounds should be pointed directly at another human. There are simulated revolvers that look real but are incapable of being loaded with real ammunition or fired, but this production was too cheap to use them.

all in the line of possession or observation on set seems to be the only check and balance to serve as the ultimate alternative to the former. Since even one of the armorers reportedly couldn't tell a live round from a dummy when the chamber was emptied, it appears to require more than your described minimal "safety" training for dummies. But, no need to argue the point. CGI and fake non-functional weapons would seem to be the only answer--on set as in the real world, frankly.

But does it really take about an hour for basic gun safety? I’ve been to about 4 shooting ranges over the last 15 years. Each time I had to either pass their basic gun safety test or take their gun safety class. These classes were never more than 20 minutes and they covered a lot more than gun safety.

I don’t have a revolver. I have a 9mm semi automatic Glock pistol. Honestly, I can show you in less than 5 minutes how to safely drop the magazine and slide the rack to check the chamber to make sure it’s not loaded. And how long does it take to tell someone “never point a gun at a person, never put your finger on the trigger, always assume it’s loaded”, etc.? I knew all that already before I ever held a gun for the first time.

It’s incredibly simple to check a gun…once you’ve been shown. Without that basic training an accident is very likely. But I’m just having a hard time understanding why basic gun safety training could take an hour.

So I'm using that as a guide.

Even if pointed in a safe direction

Unless you are a trained to see the used primer or no primer, then you don't know if it is a dummy or live round. This is further complicated by the revolver being a gated type so you have to hold the gate open and spin the cylinder examining each round. Not sure how good a view you have of the end of round.

In general I do agree with you, but a movie using dummy rounds in an actual gun is a little different situation. Ideally the gun should have been loaded in Baldwin's presence with the armorer showing Baldwin that each round was an actual dummy (the hole in the side, the sound of beebees rattling, and the lack of a primer). Also a gun capable of firing blanks or live rounds should never have been pointed directly at other actors or crew members (they should have have a simulated replica for these scenes, but they were too CHEAP).

and keep your finger off the trigger until one actually intends to fire the weapon.

To me, this screams of revenge for Baldwin's funny portrayals of trump.

According to post 11, he's a Democrat.

The person holding the gun is responsible for its safe use.

By charging him as both the shooter and the EP, I think it's going to be problematic for the prosecution.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkgnwm/alex-baldwin-on-phone-gun-training-rust-shooting

Treating gun safety training as an inconvenience.

Most of us here know guns are dangerous and are always to be handled as such.

and cock it (not necessarily to pull the trigger but that is easy to do especially on this type of gun apparently).

Now a gun capable of firing blanks or live rounds should never have been used in such a scene.

If that is the case, then the director, choreographer, assistant director, armorer, and production supervisor all have a hand in setting up this dangerous situation.

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2023-01-18/alec-baldwin-rust-shooting-what-you-need-to-know



Baldwin was the executive producer- this was/is a low-budget film- it was filmed in New Mexico precisely to keep costs low.

I learned that at the age of 10 while at summer camp. I am not a fan of the NRA because of its fight against reasonable firearm laws, but at Summer camp in the 50s, we were taught about safety first and then how to shoot.