339

Alec Baldwin indicted for involuntary manslaughter in fatal gunfire on film set (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

200 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Grand jury in New Mexico charged the actor for a shooting on Rust set that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins

Actor Alec Baldwin is facing a new involuntary manslaughter charge over the 2021 fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the movie Rust.

A Santa Fe, New Mexico, grand jury indicted Baldwin on Friday, months after prosecutors had dismissed the same criminal charge against him.

During an October 2021 rehearsal on the set of Rust, a western drama, Baldwin was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins when it went off, fatally striking her and wounding Joel Souza, the film’s director.

Baldwin, a co-producer and star of the film, has said he did not pull the trigger, but pulled back the hammer of the gun before it fired.

Last April, special prosecutors dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin, saying the firearm might have been modified prior to the shooting and malfunctioned and that forensic analysis was warranted. But in August, prosecutors said they were considering re-filing the charges after a new analysis of the weapon was completed.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 178 points 11 months ago

I'm like 90% sure now that the absolutely glacial pace this is moving at confirms that the only reason verdicts come down so quickly in most other cases is because most accused can't afford the court and lawyer's fees to keep fighting for as long as they realistically could.

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 68 points 11 months ago

Except if your name is Trump. Somehow he's able to drag out all his court cases and not pay his lawyers.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 33 points 11 months ago

That I chalk more up to how pants shittingly terrified judges are of setting a new precedent, let alone one as impactful as jailing a former president. None of them want to be the guy who goes down in history as having locked up a major political figure without the most air tight case imaginable.

[-] MagicShel@programming.dev 32 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This is the most airtight case imaginable. We sat here and watched him crime right on tv.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 26 points 11 months ago

He also has just straight-up admitted to other big crimes on camera as well.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] n3m37h@sh.itjust.works 16 points 11 months ago

Thats because he has people pretending to be lawyers instead of real lawyers

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 94 points 11 months ago

This from the start has seemed to me like a prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves by taking down a famous person.

If you're doing a scene where you throw acid on somebody is the person throwing the acid supposed to check to make sure it's not actually acid before they throw it?

Should they check to make sure the knife they're about to stab someone with is actually a prop?

If you get to the person who's been told to "do this action convincingly" and you want them to double check all the safety work you're doing it wrong. Their job isn't making sure they've been given safe tools, it's using safe tools to make someone that's fake but convincing.

Everyone in the armoring company should be charged with murder ... but Alec Baldwin did not put live rounds into a gun. He went into work, did his job, and because other people screwed up someone got shot. Maybe the industry itself needs to change but that shouldn't be Alec Baldwin's problem. That's not justice.

[-] CaptainProton@lemmy.world 92 points 11 months ago

But you're right, and the management who kept ignoring problems is going to be tried here. It just so happens that the producer was also an actor and happened to be the one given a bad prop. Alec was the manager of everyone: he hired people, and decided they were doing a good enough job. After employees complained about safety problems, he ignored them. After people QUIT over those safety problems, he continued ignoring them. Alec the producer is the one on trial, not Alec the actor.

[-] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago

Thank you! I feel like I've never been able to get the full story!

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 23 points 11 months ago

Baldwin was in charge. He wasn't just an Actor. He took several actions that made the set less safe that day.

load more comments (49 replies)

[-] magnetosphere@kbin.social 38 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I’m tired of hearing about this. Start the fucking trial already.

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 29 points 11 months ago

Is there a reason they had a gun loaded with actual bullets or even actual bullets on the set? Isn't like everything in movies done with blanks?

[-] maness300@lemmy.world 34 points 11 months ago

It's my understanding the person in charge of making sure weapons were loaded with blanks had issues with using real rounds in the past.

[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago

Who is this person and why isn't he charged / in jail?

[-] gooble@lemm.ee 38 points 11 months ago

It’s armorer Hannah Gutierrez Reed, and she has been charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, and tampering with evidence. The trial starts next month and she could face up to three years in prison if convicted.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] deegeese@sopuli.xyz 15 points 11 months ago

He hired the cheapest firearms manager, tolerated crew playing with real bullets, and so when he’s handed a loaded gun, it’s a direct result of his own mistakes.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 138 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Lowest bidder aside, how is this clearly not the armorer's fault front and center? It was her responsibility to handle the set props. What Baldwin paid them is irrelevant to what she claimed she could provide and was obligated to provide under contract.

She is literally the one to (a) claim the firearm was safe, but (b) load it with live ammunition.

???

[-] CptEnder@lemmy.world 106 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Work in the industry, doc side but this is pretty basic producer stuff. This is 100% on the armorer and the only reason they keep trying to charge Baldwin is the legal grey area of the state they filmed in. Had this happened in a state with more production (Georgia, Louisiana, California) there would be a more direct way for prosecutors to go after the correct person. Georgia and California specifically has legal precedent from deaths on set like this.

One of the reasons credits are so long is because we hire people to maintain a safe set - think of it like a foreman for safe worksite in construction (which we also hire often). We hire a ton of people for safety from actual police to medics and rescue personnel.

Hiring an armorer is SPECIFICALLY to avoid situations like this. Because the production company is like "hey you know what? I don't think me, some producer knows how to use a gun safely, I should hire someone who's certified to do that." It's not some token job, they're supposed to be trained on how to properly load the powder of the blank rounds, how to mark and flag hot guns and dead props, and pretty fucking much rule #1A is never bring live ammo anywhere near your set.

Baldwin should not be held criminally liable and any half decent entertainment lawyer will settle that. Now civil liability, that's certainly more realistic. But even then it should be the production LLC not any 1 person.

load more comments (9 replies)

[-] negativeyoda@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

An article I read right after this happened (which very well could have been a hit piece) said she (the armorer) was in her early 20s and would fuck around and go shooting with the prop guns when filming wasn't happening. So... kind of. Yes

Sounds like there's lots of blame to go around

load more comments (51 replies)

[-] chaogomu@kbin.social 65 points 11 months ago

The thing is, he's not the one who hired her.

He was one of 10 listed producers on that film, and was not the hiring director.

load more comments (20 replies)

[-] fidodo@lemmy.world 19 points 11 months ago

Do you know his involvement in her being hired? Being a producer can mean anything from total involvement to it just being a name on paper.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024

339 points (95.7% liked)

News

23669 readers

3337 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

Tenthrow@lemmy.world

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world