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

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,029
5,796
118
Country
United Kingdom
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.
There are two elements that people are considering here: the physical act of firing the gun, and his liability for Gutierrez-Reed's negligence, as the Producer holding responsibility for hiring.

The point of my "if he didn't fire the shot" scenario wasn't just to offer a counterfactual where the whole offence didn't occur. It was to separate those two elements, because I feel like they're getting muddied together. If we're considering those actions (the hiring and the firing) individually, what's the level of responsibility on each?

#1: I don't think responsibility rests on Baldwin for firing the shot. He had every reason to believe it was empty, having been told so by 2 professionals. He couldn't be expected to just assume neither of them had done their jobs.

#2: I do think responsibility rests on Baldwin for hiring somebody negligent. But that liability doesn't reach manslaughter. People are reaching for manslaughter because they're wrongly mixing the two actions into one: considering the negligence of #2 as the direct cause of the damage caused by #1. But it's not.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
#1: I don't think responsibility rests on Baldwin for firing the shot. He had every reason to believe it was empty, having been told so by 2 professionals. He couldn't be expected to just assume neither of them had done their jobs.
Bit of a grey area there, Checking the weapon even if you are assured it's safe is very common as part of basic gun safety. Likewise, always treating the weapon as if it's loaded, keeping finger out of trigger guard, pointing it in a safe direction.

Now, when they are actually filming, those rules have to get broken, at least to an extent, but they weren't yet.

(This is according to me, a non-actor living in another country sitting comfortably on my lounge some time after the event)
 

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,627
1,657
118
Country
United States
Special prosecutor explains the logic for the charges. Sounds like it amounts to, he should have known better and he shouldn't have opened his mouth after.

 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,416
3,394
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
Bit of a grey area there, Checking the weapon even if you are assured it's safe is very common as part of basic gun safety. Likewise, always treating the weapon as if it's loaded, keeping finger out of trigger guard, pointing it in a safe direction.

Now, when they are actually filming, those rules have to get broken, at least to an extent, but they weren't yet.

(This is according to me, a non-actor living in another country sitting comfortably on my lounge some time after the event)
Except as an actor he is expected to break almost all the rules of gun safety. That's why he has to rely on the armorer and director. You don't want an actor to be fucking around with the gun.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
Special prosecutor explains the logic for the charges. Sounds like it amounts to, he should have known better and he shouldn't have opened his mouth after.

Yup, even Baldwin knows he should have looked and admitting it is pretty damning for a case. Because despite what some people think, an actor is another chain in gun safety. It doesn't begin and end with one person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
There are two elements that people are considering here: the physical act of firing the gun, and his liability for Gutierrez-Reed's negligence, as the Producer holding responsibility for hiring.

The point of my "if he didn't fire the shot" scenario wasn't just to offer a counterfactual where the whole offence didn't occur. It was to separate those two elements, because I feel like they're getting muddied together. If we're considering those actions (the hiring and the firing) individually, what's the level of responsibility on each?

#1: I don't think responsibility rests on Baldwin for firing the shot. He had every reason to believe it was empty, having been told so by 2 professionals. He couldn't be expected to just assume neither of them had done their jobs.

#2: I do think responsibility rests on Baldwin for hiring somebody negligent. But that liability doesn't reach manslaughter. People are reaching for manslaughter because they're wrongly mixing the two actions into one: considering the negligence of #2 as the direct cause of the damage caused by #1. But it's not.

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.
I hope you two will forgive my responding to both at once, but it felt like there was appreciable overlap.

To split hairs over Worgen's "now if he was a producer" aside, I feel obliged to point out that Baldwin was both actor and producer for Rust.

That aside, that's certainly a defense that could work, but a viable defense argument is a far cry from the charges being "bullshit". Whether you think he should be found guilty or innocent, let's be honest here, the key question is one of legal nuance. The simple fact is that his actions directly led to someone's death. The question is whether or not the circumstances mitigate his (and the armorer's) legal culpability for that and, if so, by how much they reduce it.

This is not a case that will be decided by a simple "did it really happen". The key question is how the burden of responsibility for that was spread out and whether or not the event was the result of reasonable safety measures being ignored. And that's something I think is better handled by the court systems than the so-called "court of public opinion".
 
Last edited:

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,416
3,394
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I hope you two will forgive my responding to both at once, but it felt like there was appreciable overlap.

To split hairs over Worgen's "now if he was a producer" aside, I feel obliged to point out that Baldwin was both actor and producer for Rust.

That aside, that's certainly a defense that could work, but a viable defense argument is a far cry from the charges being "bullshit". Whether you think he should be found guilty or innocent, let's be honest here, the key question is one of legal nuance. The simple fact is that his actions directly led to someone's death. The question is whether or not the circumstances mitigate his (and the armorer's) legal culpability for that and, if so, by how much they reduce it.

This is not a case that will be decided by a simple "did it really happen". The key question is how the burden of responsibility for that was spread out and whether or not the event was the result of reasonable safety measures being ignored. And that's something I think is better handled by the court systems than the so-called "court of public opinion".
Unless his roll was armorer then he shouldn't be held responsible for the shooting. Now if he was responsible for the armorer being hired then there is some liability there. But this is almost the only instance when the shooter shouldn't be held responsible since the shooter was expected to not be handling a firearm in a safe manner. He had no reason to believe a live round would be anywhere near that gun when it was handed to him and this is also the only situation when you don't want the person with the gun to check it.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
Unless his roll was armorer then he shouldn't be held responsible for the shooting. Now if he was responsible for the armorer being hired then there is some liability there. But this is almost the only instance when the shooter shouldn't be held responsible since the shooter was expected to not be handling a firearm in a safe manner. He had no reason to believe a live round would be anywhere near that gun when it was handed to him and this is also the only situation when you don't want the person with the gun to check it.
Not so. Per the Actor's Equity Association Guidelines on firearm safety, one should - among other things:
  • Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.
  • Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.
  • If you are the intended target of a gunshot, make sure that the person firing at you has followed all these safety procedures.
  • Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.
And of course:
  • Live ammunition may not be brought into the theatre.
  • If any of the above safety tips conflict with the instructions given by a qualified instructor, abide by the instructions from the qualified instructor. If you are still not sure, contact your Equity Business Representative.
The last one is something that would need to be established and could potentially make the instructor solely responsible, but the point is that the simple existence of the armorer is not a get out of jail free card for the actor. There are still safety procedures that they are expected to follow.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,316
1,492
118
Unless his roll was armorer then he shouldn't be held responsible for the shooting. Now if he was responsible for the armorer being hired then there is some liability there. But this is almost the only instance when the shooter shouldn't be held responsible since the shooter was expected to not be handling a firearm in a safe manner. He had no reason to believe a live round would be anywhere near that gun when it was handed to him and this is also the only situation when you don't want the person with the gun to check it.
Whether you think the actor has a role in gun safety on set doesn't really matter

There are rules and regulations to firearm safety on a set of a movie. You thinking the actor shouldn't be a chain in gun safety on set doesn't come into play because the rules and regulations state that an actor DOES have a role in that chain.

You can think it's unfair but it's not some global conspiracy against a lefty here. There are rules to keep guns as safe as possible on set. Alec Baldwin broke said rules and it cost someone their life. Whether you think those rules are fair or not is negligible.
 

CM156

Resident Reactionary
Legacy
May 6, 2020
1,133
1,213
118
Country
United States
Gender
White Male
One of the classic law school hypotheticals in first year Criminal Law is an actor who is handed what they are told is a prop weapon and they use it to accidentally kill someone.
I don't have any larger point to make here. I just find it sad that it came true in this way.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,113
3,283
118
One of the classic law school hypotheticals in first year Criminal Law is an actor who is handed what they are told is a prop weapon and they use it to accidentally kill someone.
I don't have any larger point to make here. I just find it sad that it came true in this way.
Well it sounds like a lot of law professors are cursing and having to come up with a new hypothetical.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
One of the classic law school hypotheticals in first year Criminal Law is an actor who is handed what they are told is a prop weapon and they use it to accidentally kill someone.
I don't have any larger point to make here. I just find it sad that it came true in this way.
If that was done intentionally, but the person they kill wasn't the intended target it's also an episode of every not-too-serious detective show ever.
 

Ravinoff

Elite Member
Legacy
May 31, 2012
316
35
33
Country
Canada
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.
The thing with The Crow was somewhat stupider and more negligent than that. As I understand it, what's believed to have happened is this: the armorer went home for the day because none of the other scenes filming that day required them. But for reasons I'm not clear on, there was one involving a gun with dummy bullets. Now here's where it became fatal: somebody decided to save a few bucks and make their own dummy rounds instead of buying them (or having them done by the armorer and properly checked). They did that by dismantling live rounds, dumping the powder and loading the bullets back into the cases. Problem is they left the primers live, and a centerfire primer does generate enough energy to pop the bullet out of the case and into the barrel.

Filming resumes the next day, and this time they're doing the scene where Lee's character is shot. Nobody ever checks to make sure the barrel on the gun they're using is clear, just loading it with full-power blanks and handing it to the actor who's supposed to "shoot" Lee. Full-power blank + bullet stuck in barrel = more or less a live .44 Magnum round, fatally shooting Brandon Lee.

And the truly ironic part is that if you combined the Rust and The Crow situations, trying to fire a live round through a gun with a bullet stuck in the barrel, it's more than likely that nobody would have died (albeit depending how well the gun holds up, anyone in the general vicinity might be injured). Called a squib - no relation to the explosive blood packets of the same name used in movies - and happens sometimes with low-quality or defective ammo. #1 cause of catastrophic failures in firearms, depending on your luck and the gun it'll at minimum ruin your barrel and not uncommonly just blow the whole thing up due to the pressure spike.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
1,592
1,233
118
Country
United States
On the contrary. Having a real world example only helps.
...and here it is.

No prosecutor attentive to their conviction rate would press charges on this turd; there's more than enough fodder to generate reasonable doubt and therefore acquit Baldwin. What's going on here, is somebody's looking to cash in on the profile of the case. Whether that's a podcast, lecture circuit, or cable news gig, a book or documentary deal, or hell even a string of articles in law reviews, is anyone's guess but there's big money to be made beating this horse into a fine paste for the next decade or so before climate change or nuclear war claims us all.

These criminal charges are basically a pilot episode for the massive cable news donkey show that'll be the civil trial(s).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ravinoff

Piscian

Elite Member
Apr 28, 2020
1,627
1,657
118
Country
United States
...and here it is.

No prosecutor attentive to their conviction rate would press charges on this turd; there's more than enough fodder to generate reasonable doubt and therefore acquit Baldwin. What's going on here, is somebody's looking to cash in on the profile of the case. Whether that's a podcast, lecture circuit, or cable news gig, a book or documentary deal, or hell even a string of articles in law reviews, is anyone's guess but there's big money to be made beating this horse into a fine paste for the next decade or so before climate change or nuclear war claims us all.

These criminal charges are basically a pilot episode for the massive cable news donkey show that'll be the civil trial(s).
I'm on the fence. The case is extremely shaky here and they went with the lowest possible charge because it's the only one that has a remote chance of sticking. The prosecutor is going to lean heavily on his character and his responsibility as the producer. He either plea bargains for reckless endangerment or he gets on the stand. The prosecutor then has to hope he perjurs himself or admits guilt. I think with good lawyers and he's a goddamned actor.. that's some real icarus shit right there. The guidance and gun safety rules aren't going to stick. He'll have set gun safety experts like the one in the news video lined up out the door disputing his responsibility.

But................. he did go on TV and ended up making an ass of himself so who knows? God could be show up tomorrow and confirm my suspicion that it's actually a race of giant biomechanical inspects living in higher space time.

I don't however think there's any spotlight reason for the prosecution. I actually think in that district there might be some law obligation, like they literally have to charge him since he did kill somebody. Either that or pressure from the family who is going to follow up with a wrongful death suit, which I believe is blocked by the criminal suit. I'm not an expert, but I think they have to wait until the criminal suit starts or finishes idk.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,433
2,102
118
...and here it is.

No prosecutor attentive to their conviction rate would press charges on this turd; there's more than enough fodder to generate reasonable doubt and therefore acquit Baldwin.
I'm inclined to agree for the same reason: I don't think a jury will convict on this.

But I don't think it's necessarily as cynical as you do. A prosecutor may not so much be looking at the profits available selling his or her version of events as they are concerned how it looks for their future career to not prosecute someone rich and famous, because a lot of people are not kindly disposed to the rich and famous evading the law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Piscian

SilentPony

Previously known as an alleged "Feather-Rustler"
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
12,050
2,460
118
Corner of No and Where
...and here it is.

No prosecutor attentive to their conviction rate would press charges on this turd; there's more than enough fodder to generate reasonable doubt and therefore acquit Baldwin. What's going on here, is somebody's looking to cash in on the profile of the case. Whether that's a podcast, lecture circuit, or cable news gig, a book or documentary deal, or hell even a string of articles in law reviews, is anyone's guess but there's big money to be made beating this horse into a fine paste for the next decade or so before climate change or nuclear war claims us all.

These criminal charges are basically a pilot episode for the massive cable news donkey show that'll be the civil trial(s).
I mean you're probably right. Personally I think Baldwin has some liability and responsibility, but Im not the DA and its not my job to let that handsome charismatic man on a stand and let every juror swoon over him. The DA should have quietly cut a deal for community service, and let it go. This is absolutely a DA wanting to get on Fox News about how hardcore they are and "justice for all" yadda yadda. And they'll lose the case. Next time there's a mass shooting, they'll come back as a Fox News legal analyzer and talk about how the justice system is broken and gun laws don't work, yadda yadda.