Alec Baldwin faces involuntary manslaughter charge over deadly “Rust” shooting

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,627
1,657
118
Country
United States
Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed are being charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the deadly 2021 shooting on the set of the Western film "Rust," New Mexico prosecutors announced Thursday. Baldwin was holding a gun during a rehearsal when it discharged, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
And it looks like the assistant director signed a plea deal for a lesser charge and 6 months of probation.

But good, throw the book at them. The assistant director should have got more, but these 2 need the full punishment here.
 

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,627
1,657
118
Country
United States
I think Legally speaking this is absolutely within reason. I think he may struggle in court because he's changed his story a couple times, but it was clearly an accident. It wouldn't surprise me if he was drunk on set or has some abuse/mental issues because his public statements have been all over the place. That said $20 on acquittal or probation. Even the charge is the lowest possible charge he could get I believe.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Its a bullshit charge. Of anyone on a set that you don't want messing around with a gun its the actor. They should be handed the weapon after it was checked by the armorer and given the cold call by the director. You don't want the actor to be fucking around with it. This reeks of a political hit since the right wants to crucify him cause he made fun of trump.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
Its a bullshit charge. Of anyone on a set that you don't want messing around with a gun its the actor. They should be handed the weapon after it was checked by the armorer and given the cold call by the director. You don't want the actor to be fucking around with it. This reeks of a political hit since the right wants to crucify him cause he made fun of trump.
When it comes to gun safety everyone is involved. Further, liability would also fall on the head of the producer for hiring incompetent people and not ensuring safety procedures on the set. Baldwin is also the producer.
 

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
1,581
2,290
118
Country
Ireland
Its a bullshit charge. Of anyone on a set that you don't want messing around with a gun its the actor. They should be handed the weapon after it was checked by the armorer and given the cold call by the director. You don't want the actor to be fucking around with it. This reeks of a political hit since the right wants to crucify him cause he made fun of trump.
The producers hired a woefully inexperienced and inept armourer on the cheap. That includes Baldwin.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
I've just been reading about Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, and there are a lot of red flags there. It was her second job as lead armourer, but the crew from the film during her first job reported several extremely concerning incidents: firing the gun without warning, reloading it on the ground near debris and pebbles without then checking the barrel, etc.

Plus, she had put a number of pictures up of herself holding guns in quote-unquote "cool" poses, which just gives the impression she didn't afford the job the proper level of seriousness.

I get that vetting and hiring makes the producer liable for the mistakes of their appointees. I can see Baldwin being responsible for that. But the actual firing of the gun, not so much: he had been informed by two separate professionals that it was not loaded. Manslaughter doesn't seem appropriate for that. Something related to improper vetting or negligence maybe, relating to the hiring process, but not manslaughter surely.
 

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,627
1,657
118
Country
United States
I've just been reading about Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, and there are a lot of red flags there. It was her second job as lead armourer, but the crew from the film during her first job reported several extremely concerning incidents: firing the gun without warning, reloading it on the ground near debris and pebbles without then checking the barrel, etc.

Plus, she had put a number of pictures up of herself holding guns in quote-unquote "cool" poses, which just gives the impression she didn't afford the job the proper level of seriousness.

I get that vetting and hiring makes the producer liable for the mistakes of their appointees. I can see Baldwin being responsible for that. But the actual firing of the gun, not so much: he had been informed by two separate professionals that it was not loaded. Manslaughter doesn't seem appropriate for that. Something related to improper vetting or negligence maybe, relating to the hiring process, but not manslaughter surely.
If I recall correctly Nick Cage personally kicked her off the set of her last movie (could be a different actor, but I think it was Nick). Her dad is an armorer and thats how shes started in the business. One of the problems is these are like extreme low budget films so they're just going with whomever is cheap.

I think thats actually where I hold Baldwin more responsible. He was a producer on the film. It actually is his job to keep an eye on things and I think they really played it fast and loose. I don't have any animosity towards Alec, but my god did he handle this whole event poorly.

 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,316
1,492
118
When it comes to gun safety everyone is involved. Further, liability would also fall on the head of the producer for hiring incompetent people and not ensuring safety procedures on the set. Baldwin is also the producer.
I don't know if any articles have said (I at least haven't seen one and maybe it doesn't exist cause it would just be assumptions) but I wonder if it were JUST him as an actor if he'd be charged or if he's being charged because as a Producer, he has a much bigger role in the accident.

A similar case with The Crow, the actor who shot and killed Brandon Lee by accident was never criminally charged for the accident. Although in that case, my understanding is that it was a prop round and a horrible accident rather than Rust where a live round was chambered...
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Its a bullshit charge. Of anyone on a set that you don't want messing around with a gun its the actor. They should be handed the weapon after it was checked by the armorer and given the cold call by the director. You don't want the actor to be fucking around with it. This reeks of a political hit since the right wants to crucify him cause he made fun of trump.
...How do you figure? The charge is against Baldwin (who was the one who accidentally shot and killed someone, which is not under dispute), and the armorer (who was responsible for maintaining the gun and ensuring that it was not loaded with live rounds). Seems like the appropriate charge to me.

I get that vetting and hiring makes the producer liable for the mistakes of their appointees. I can see Baldwin being responsible for that. But the actual firing of the gun, not so much: he had been informed by two separate professionals that it was not loaded. Manslaughter doesn't seem appropriate for that. Something related to improper vetting or negligence maybe, relating to the hiring process, but not manslaughter surely.
...Hence the charge of Involuntary Manslaughter, an unintentional killing that was the result of criminal negligence or recklessness.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,027
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
...Hence the charge of Involuntary Manslaughter, an unintentional killing that was the result of criminal negligence or recklessness.
Hiring somebody whose actions then lead to someone's death would not lead to a manslaughter charge in almost any other circumstances.

Suppose someone else had been handed the gun and fired it. Would Baldwin still be the one charged with manslaughter, though he didn't fire the shot? I highly doubt it.

The water surrounding his liability as a producer is being muddied by the fact it was his finger on the trigger.

This isn't to say other charges aren't appropriate.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,990
2,024
118
Country
United States
I don't know if any articles have said (I at least haven't seen one and maybe it doesn't exist cause it would just be assumptions) but I wonder if it were JUST him as an actor if he'd be charged or if he's being charged because as a Producer, he has a much bigger role in the accident.

A similar case with The Crow, the actor who shot and killed Brandon Lee by accident was never criminally charged for the accident. Although in that case, my understanding is that it was a prop round and a horrible accident rather than Rust where a live round was chambered...
Yeah, The Crow is a different story, as what happened was that, while the gun was being prepped, a piece of the gun somehow fell into the barrel, and that's what was fired into Brandon Lee. It was a tragic accident, but no one was really at fault for it in any actionable way (the piece fell in when they were dry-firing the gun to make sure the barrel was clear, ironically enough), even if Michael Massee did go to his grave blaming himself.

As for the involuntary manslaughter charge in this case...keep in mind that Alec was pointing the gun off-camera AT SOMEONE WHO WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE SHOT. I think that's where the sticking issue was. He didn't mean to pull the trigger, no, and it shouldn't have fired a shot when it did if the gun was prepped properly, but were his actions reckless in a legal sense? Maybe, hence the charge. We'll see if it's actually determined to be so in a court of law, however.

After all, John Landis got away with manslaughter under much less murky circumstances...
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Hiring somebody whose actions then lead to someone's death would not lead to a manslaughter charge in almost any other circumstances.

Suppose someone else had been handed the gun and fired it. Would Baldwin still be the one charged with manslaughter, though he didn't fire the shot? I highly doubt it.

The water surrounding his liability as a producer is being muddied by the fact it was his finger on the trigger.

This isn't to say other charges aren't appropriate.
I'm afraid I don't follow your logic. What makes the charge appropriate in this case is that as the person who fired the shot, Baldwin is culpable for the resulting death despite the lack of intent. Of course they wouldn't level the same charge against Baldwin if he hadn't have been the one who fired the shot, because charging him with it is predicated on that fact. That it wouldn't have been appropriate to level that charge against him if he hadn't been the one to shoot is irrelevant, however, because that's not what happened.

It's like asking if someone would still have gotten a DUI if they hadn't been driving while drunk. Of course a DUI wouldn't be appropriate then, but that doesn't matter because they were driving drunk. The charge is kinda predicated on the circumstances as they occurred.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
...How do you figure? The charge is against Baldwin (who was the one who accidentally shot and killed someone, which is not under dispute), and the armorer (who was responsible for maintaining the gun and ensuring that it was not loaded with live rounds). Seems like the appropriate charge to me.
Because Baldwin was the actor. Actors with guns pretty much have too completely ignore all the rules of firearm safety because of what the shot requires. They should be 100% reliant upon the armorer for the safety of the gun since their only roll is to make the shot look good, not the safety of the weapon. You don't want an actor screwing around with a weapon. Now if he was a producer and responsible for hiring this armorer then you may have something, but this is the kinda circumstance where the shooter should be without blame.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
If I recall correctly Nick Cage personally kicked her off the set of her last movie (could be a different actor, but I think it was Nick). Her dad is an armorer and thats how shes started in the business. One of the problems is these are like extreme low budget films so they're just going with whomever is cheap.
There are established procedures for hiring people, and they are what matter.

The requirement of the Rust producers is to do reasonable checks that the person they hire is competent. It is okay to hire someone inexperienced and early career as long as they demonstrate competence. The head armourer evidently has background and experience, including a previous job as head armourer on another film. Assuming she had supporting references from this previous work then on paper she seems competent, and the Rust producers have good reason to hire her on that basis.

What might be much more problematic are the reports of numerous lax safety procedures across the set, but that goes way beyond the armourer and is very much an issue as far as the culpability of the producers is concerned.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,316
1,492
118
As for the involuntary manslaughter charge in this case...keep in mind that Alec was pointing the gun off-camera AT SOMEONE WHO WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE SHOT. I think that's where the sticking issue was. He didn't mean to pull the trigger, no, and it shouldn't have fired a shot when it did if the gun was prepped properly, but were his actions reckless in a legal sense? Maybe, hence the charge. We'll see if it's actually determined to be so in a court of law, however.
That's a very fair point and one I completely forgot about.

Like you said, we'll see exactly how reckless it was soon enough. Like...if he was aiming at the camera because that's what the shot called for, it makes sense why he's aiming the gun at her (since as the Cinematographer, I imagine she's at or near that camera) but if he was just dickin around...

Hard to say for sure how much was reckless stupidity and how much of it was the unfortunate reality of getting that shot and it going horribly wrong but obviously someone of authority believes it's more Option A than Option B to decide to go after him for it.
 

thebobmaster

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,990
2,024
118
Country
United States
That's a very fair point and one I completely forgot about.

Like you said, we'll see exactly how reckless it was soon enough. Like...if he was aiming at the camera because that's what the shot called for, it makes sense why he's aiming the gun at her (since as the Cinematographer, I imagine she's at or near that camera) but if he was just dickin around...

Hard to say for sure how much was reckless stupidity and how much of it was the unfortunate reality of getting that shot and it going horribly wrong but obviously someone of authority believes it's more Option A than Option B to decide to go after him for it.
From what I recall, the cameras weren't rolling. He was gesturing with the gun/aiming the gun while asking if that's where they wanted to point the gun for the shot when it went off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tippy2k2