-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins With Real Gun
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
LiquidMetal14
hide your water-based mammals
The boys have had their fun lol
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
you can do better
Seeing in this thread, not in real life
DeafTourette
Perpetually Offended
He should have been held accountable! WTH?!?!
HoodWinked
Member
so bizarre apparently the evidence was filed under a different case number so because of that technicality the trial gets dismissed with prejudice and because of double jeopardy he can't even be retried.
this shit is a joke.
this shit is a joke.
Kittehkraken
Member
Technicality? Its getting dismissed because the evidence was never turned over to the defense and stashed away under a different case number.
In the morning, Morrissey had described the motion as a “wild goose chase” and said she had never before seen the report about the ammunition brought to the sheriff’s office. But as the judge questioned Hancock, the corporal said that Morrissey had taken part in the decision to keep the evidence separate from the Rust case – which elicited gasps in the courtroom.
Alec Baldwin’s Rust shooting trial dismissed after lawyers say evidence was withheld
New Mexico judge agrees charges should be dropped after lawyers said state ‘buried’ evidence about live ammunitionwww.theguardian.com
She even tried to hide the fact that she hid the evidence.
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
He was never going to be found criminally guilty, the civil trials are where he will be held accountable.
You can't have a fair trial if the prosecution can hide evidence that would allow you to exculpate yourself.
Oh you’re talking about a Brady disclosure. Yeah that’s kind of a big thing you can’t hide evidence. (Hell the fact they have to do this was literally in my cousin vinnie so not an obscure thing. )
I've just never understood why someone can escape serious charges just because proper procedure wasn't followed in the trial. Shouldn't it just mean the trial is invalidated and a new trial with a new jury should occur, in the interests of justice?
Yeah, I understand the purpose behind double jeopardy, but these are cases where a trial was never completed in the first place. So technically they're not being tried twice if the first one was nullified.
Yeah, I understand the purpose behind double jeopardy, but these are cases where a trial was never completed in the first place. So technically they're not being tried twice if the first one was nullified.
Uhh what? It was PURPOSELY stashed under a different case number and was never turned over to the defence.
Anyone with a sliver of a brain knew that this was powerplay by the DA for some stupid reason.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Absurd he was being charged anyway.
TDiddyLive
Member
He’s absolutely needed to be charged and convicted. He did something inherently dangerous, likely to cause serious injury or death (pointing a gun at somebody), which actually led to serious injury and death. That’s textbook involuntary manslaughter.
KrakenIPA
Member
Maybe it can go to civil trial and the victim's family can get some kind of closure (and the press can get their pound of flesh)? I'm not sure. I'm very surprised this case unraveled for the prosecution.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
He’s an actor in a western supplied a gun by an ‘expert’. There’s no way he’s responsible… it’s absurd. It would be like a restaurant supplier poisons some meat and charging the chef because he served it to someone without knowing
NecrosaroIII
Banned
Yeah, its pretty telling the DA resigned the same day.
TDiddyLive
Member
Terrible analogy. A gun is designed to be a lethal tool, while a piece of meat is designed to be consumed. Nobody looks at every piece of meat they’re given thinking, “I wonder if this can kill someone?” Which is exactly the attitude needed when being handed a firearm.
A better analogy would be somebody driving a sports car in a reckless manner, which would make people think, “I wonder if this can kill someone?” Which would be the right attitude, as killing someone while driving in a reckless matter can lead to charges of involuntary manslaughter.
Hero of Spielberg
Member
Ridiculous take. Reckless driving is illegal in the first place. An actor firing a weapon provided to them by a weapon expert on a film set is not.
He was handed a weapon by the armorer who is the person in charge of weapons on movie sets. The armorer never mentioned there was live ammunition in the gun.
It's not his responsibility to make sure the gun is safe for use, that is literally the job of the armorer.
Also, another actor on set "Jensen Ackles" ALSO had live bullets that he was NOT aware of in his bandolier.
Live bullet found in prop holster of actor Jensen Ackles on ‘Rust’ set, crime scene technician testifies | CNN
One of multiple live bullets found on the set of “Rust” by investigators of the 2021 fatal shooting was discovered in the bandolier of actor Jensen Ackles, according to crime scene technician Marissa Poppell.
edition.cnn.com
This is entirely the armorer's fault.
Jinzo Prime
Member
Somebody pulled some strings, payed some people off. No doubt about it.
KrakenIPA
Member
That might be the reason why the case fell apart in the last 18 hours, but it's not the most likely reason.
Pegasus Actual
Member
The prosecution was so blatantly corrupt and incompetent that the conspiracy theorist in me begins to stir. I guess a few years of discomfort is all the punishment Alec'll ever get. I doubt for one second he has any actual remorse. He totally sees himself as the victim.
Lord Panda
The Sea is Always Right
I've never seen this before but why did the DA put herself in for cross-examination? Was it a last ditch effort to salvage the case?
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
BlackTron
Member
Can you tell me your opinion on what we should do about it every time we see an actor point a gun at someone in a movie?
I'm not being cute or facetious here. 100% dead serious. I would appreciate to know your take.
BlackTron
Member
She got defensive after being called out as a liar and wanted to salvage her credibility. "I was not aware at that time the case numbers would not be linked" yeah whatever
NecrosaroIII
Banned
KrakenIPA
Member
I remember this post because it was the first time I realized that Nobody_Important is usually right about stuff.
As much as it has been debated on who did what, it is still absurd for Alec Baldwin to be held responsible in a criminal case.
It is 100% the armourer's fault, plain and simple.
The most this tragedy can do, is drastically change the law of weapons (on the set), but any way you look at it, it is hard to make up the rules where the actor, the actor (look up the definition) should be a certified damn expert.
All that can be done is completely ban real guns in Hollywood movies (oh, the irony there) and make all gun scenes CGI.
It is 100% the armourer's fault, plain and simple.
The most this tragedy can do, is drastically change the law of weapons (on the set), but any way you look at it, it is hard to make up the rules where the actor, the actor (look up the definition) should be a certified damn expert.
All that can be done is completely ban real guns in Hollywood movies (oh, the irony there) and make all gun scenes CGI.
BlackTron
Member
John Travolta should have had life in prison for this.
Obviously, it's just a movie and it was planned for the kid to get his head exploded. But the part where Travolta was pointing an actual gun at a real actor was extremely unsafe. Any self-respecting, law-abiding sharpshooter knows you never point a gun at another person unless you intend to kill, especially prop guns prepared by an armorer on a movie set, because you respect Real Power.
KrakenIPA
Member
I think upon George Miller's Mad Max works, the idea of a director that uses "character points gun at character" so much in a script/screenplay. Also QT and John Woo, I suppose.
TDiddyLive
Member
Pretty simple. Verify the condition of the weapon any time it is handed to you. Just like any person in any situation would be expected to do. Not sure? Ask the armorer, and have them explain. The people having the gun pointed at them should verify as well. Would not take long at all.
BlackTron
Member
I think he has a bigger problem because he's also producer. It makes him responsible for the whole operation. That's why the evidence is so noteworthy, it shows that the live ammo came from the prop company.
Both the prop company and the armorer failed. Because it is his movie and he fired the shot, there were certainly enough questions to have to go to court.
I would have found it sad and bizarre if he had to accept liability. It was a tragedy that occured during the normal course of performing his duties due to the neglect of other parties. Even the notion of pointing the gun at the camera -of course he is. Ever watch a movie before?
BearNecessity
Banned
Sure lets expect lindsey lohan to exercise more caution and training than the actual military.
‘Ms Lohan please inpect these blank bullets and confirm they are not real bullets. Theres 9 of them, could be anyone one of them, inspect them carefully and sign this form that says youre responsible for them.’
Ffs people.
Last edited:
BlackTron
Member
You didn't answer my question lol
BlackTron
Member
First since you aren't going to, I'll address your assertion that you're automatically bad for pointing a gun at someone, since you just gave a condition that makes it acceptable.
So, since the actors job is to act, they have people named armorers whose job it is to handle weapons. When the gun was handed to Baldwin it was verbally confirmed safe. This is standard process. They neither deviated from this process nor did you bother to find out what happened first.
KrakenIPA
Member
I've handled blank rounds at the same time as live rounds, and it was a different vibe when the gun was locked and loaded with either of the two. It certainly wasn't easy for me to pull the trigger for either.
Pegasus Actual
Member
Not sure if I'm having a McBain moment...
It's not clear that Travolta pointed a gun at anyone. It's certainly not in frame and I don't think Phil LaMarr is even seen again after his last line and the camera cuts to Travolta. I don't know anything about the actual filming, but it doesn't seem that pointing the gun at a real person was necessary, and I don't see any evidence that it happened.
TDiddyLive
Member
That 100% answered your question. Don’t point guns at other people on set until everyone knows the condition of the weapon.
If everyone verified the gun is safe, then no, you’re not automatically bad for pointing a weapon at somebody. As for standard process, plenty of actors came out when this incident first occurred advising standard practice was the armorer would show the actor the condition of the weapon then advise why it is safe.
Thats right, completely ignore the part of my post that you quoted where I said not sure? Ask the armorer.Sure lets expect lindsey lohan to exercise more caution and training than the actual military.
‘Ms Lohan please inpect these blank bullets and confirm they are not real bullets. Theres 9 of them, could be anyone one of them, inspect them carefully and sign this form that says youre responsible for them.’
Ffs people.
BearNecessity
Banned
Ok they asked the armourer and a person gets shot dead on set. Who goes to jail?
Nobody_Important
“Aww, it’s so...average,” she said to him in a cold brick of passion
To be fair this was a very predictable outcome given the circumstances.
People were just going ballistic on both sides because of the politics of the person involved.
Trilobit
Absolutely Cozy
Great write-up by Variety about the whole debacle. Baldwin's lawyers basically sprung a trap on the incompetent prosecutors. It would fit in a lawyer drama TV show. What a mess:
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/alec-baldwin-lawyers-rust-trial-dismissed-analysis-1236069142/
https://variety.com/2024/film/news/alec-baldwin-lawyers-rust-trial-dismissed-analysis-1236069142/
Last edited:
Mr Reasonable
Completely Unreasonable
In a podcast I listen to, a TV producer explained that before using a gun with blanks, the armourer would firstly prepare the weapon, declare it safe when handing it to the actor who would be firing it, and the actor would then check it themselves and would show it to other participants in the scene. The producer stressed that this sort of check would take place with weapons that were mostly harmless, giving the example of a crossbow that couldn't fire a bolt, iirc.
I don't agree with the argument that I've seen, that he's an actor, it's not his job. Training should and is part of the safety process on many productions.
All this stuff about a gun is never pointed at a person is easily debunked, it happens on camera in loads of films and tv shows.
Aside from the armourer's failings, the big problem here is Baldwin's status - industry veteran, household name, and producer on the production. His status would give him ample opportunity to set the tone and dictate the pace at which scenes were prepped and filmed.
There's no doubt that the armourer is at fault for handing over a live weapon, but if Baldwin had felt that it was appropriate to take the time to double check the weapon when handed it, as outlined by the producer I mention, then the outcome could have been different.
I would expect that would be the line that action against him would take, and tbh, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to investigate if other people on the production felt that Baldwin had rushed the process.
I don't agree with the argument that I've seen, that he's an actor, it's not his job. Training should and is part of the safety process on many productions.
All this stuff about a gun is never pointed at a person is easily debunked, it happens on camera in loads of films and tv shows.
Aside from the armourer's failings, the big problem here is Baldwin's status - industry veteran, household name, and producer on the production. His status would give him ample opportunity to set the tone and dictate the pace at which scenes were prepped and filmed.
There's no doubt that the armourer is at fault for handing over a live weapon, but if Baldwin had felt that it was appropriate to take the time to double check the weapon when handed it, as outlined by the producer I mention, then the outcome could have been different.
I would expect that would be the line that action against him would take, and tbh, I think it wouldn't be unreasonable to investigate if other people on the production felt that Baldwin had rushed the process.
mansoor1980
Gold Member
reasonable post , no pun intended