[b]● Prosecutors in New Mexico have dropped enhanced firearm charges against Alec Baldwin. ● The move reduces possible prison time. ● The actor still faces 18 months in prison if found guilty of the lesser charges.[/b]
[i][c=666666]Alec Baldwin and the film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, still face involuntary manslaughter charges. (GETTY IMAGES)[/c][/i]
[sep]
New Mexico prosecutors have dropped firearm enhancement charges against actor Alec Baldwin following the fatal shooting of Halyna Hutchins on the set of the movie Rust. Ms Hutchins, 42, died in hospital after she was shot in the chest by a prop gun fired by Mr Baldwin.
The original charges carry a mandatory five-year prison sentence while the reduced charges (involuntary manslaughter) can result in 18 months of prison time.
The district attorney for Santa Fe (Heather Brewer) said the prosecution had dropped the initial charges to “avoid further litigious distractions by Mr Baldwin and his attorneys”.
"The prosecution's priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys," Ms Brewer said.
The firearm enhancement charge has also been dropped for the film's armorer - Hannah Guitierrez-Reed according to CBS News.
Lawyers for the two accused had argued that the firearm enhancement charges were related to a version of the law passed after the October 2021 shooting incident.
Mr. Baldwin’s lawyer, Lukas Nikas said his client “had no reason to believe that there was a live bullet in the gun - or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds”.
Earlier in February, the sister and parents of Ms Hutchins sued Mr Baldwin over Ms Hutchins death. Her husband agreed to settle his wrongful death lawsuit last year. Filming for the Western film will resume this spring with Mr Baldwin as the lead actor.
[sep]
[c=004A59][b]Opinion Poll: [u]Should Alec Baldwin have checked the gun himself?[/u] [/b][/c]
📊 Vote your Opinion in the Poll, above. 📥 💬 Comment below. ⬇️
I got mixed feelings about this. In real life when you pick up a gun you are responsible for being sure it isn't loaded and you certainly don't point it at someone and pull the trigger. Things apparently work different on movie sets. Someone else is responsible for being sure it isn't loaded, or at least being sure it is loaded with blanks or fake cartridges or whatever the scene calls for. And when someone gets shot and killed they are supposed to jump back up afterwards like nothing ever happened. In other words the gun was supposed to be idiot proofed by someone else, and on top of that the idiot wasn't supposed to point it directly at the other person but off to the side.
Multiple things went wrong here, starting with someone bringing live rounds on to the set. From what I understand the armorer wasn't even on the set at the time of the accident and someone else handed Baldwin the gun and it sounds like they only half ass checked it. Was he qualified to do this? Shouldn't the Armorer have been there? I don't completely understand what the "rules" about this are. It was supposed to be a practice run. There's no reason it needed any cartridges, blanks or otherwise. I don't see any point in him actually cocking the gun and pulling the trigger but he did, and he was pointing it directly at the woman. Then he claimed he didn't pull the trigger. Bullshit. I own what is for all practical purposes the same exact gun except in .357. Depending on precisely which version he was using, the hammers on those have 3 or 4 positions. The first would be a "safe" position that holds the firing pin slightly above the cartridge, the second is the loading position that allows the cylinder to rotate freely so it can be loaded through the loading gate, the third is a half cock position in which the chamber is indexed to the barrel and firing pin but the trigger can't be pulled, the final position is fully cocked and ready to fire. I tried every way imaginable to make the hammer drop (on an empty chamber of course) and there's only two ways that could have happened. One is he fully cocked it and pulled the trigger, the other is he (at least) halfcocked it and was trying to decock it and his thumb slipped while he still had his finger on the trigger. Either way, he had his finger on the trigger when it went off. Ultimately, he was the director, he should have known what the proper procedures were. He bears a certain amount of responsibility for what happened even if it had been someone else holding the gun
To answer the actual question, from what I understand no, actors aren't supposed to do anything but what they are told to do. Someone else was supposed to check. It's assumed the actors aren't qualified to know how a gun is supposed to work. That would have been the armorers job. But then he hired her. But then she wasn't there. But he most likely hired the guy who handed him the gun, who apparently didn't know how guns worked either.
@robb65 If actors are only supposed to do what they are told, there was no part of the script as I understand that told him to do what he did.
In this day and age there's no reason for a real gun on a set. There are "prop guns" which don't shoot anything. They can add the bang and fireball or gun smoke or whatever in the editing room.
If any should wish to debate this issue in a friendly mainer, this is the place to debate it. Not on another's thread. I respect that persons wishes.
The industry, as well as the legal system is totally wrong on this issue though.
Legal case loads are geared towards the movie industry. That is morally wrong on the whole gun issue! It allows gun proliferation nation wide by those that do not wish to pay the consequences.
Absolutely no one should even hold a gun without proper training!
Alec Baldwin had no training so he is guilty as charged. Yet even if he did have training he is doubly guilty!
There should be no exceptions on this. Anything else is excusing the whole industry and allowing unqualified people to handle guns. So more guns on the streets with the NRA being totally happy about this!
He did what he did as an actor. He was acting. The real criminal is the armorer who is in charge of the weapon at all times. I seen the same thing, not personally, happen to Brandon Lee on the set of The Crow. Live ammo mixed around with the blanks. Why would you have live ammo on set for prop guns????
I honestly don’t know. Is an actor playing a role expected to be as knowledgeable about guns as someone who is a marksman in real life ? Considering the gun as a prop, wouldn’t securing it have been someone else’s job ?
@DeWayfarer and Michael Massey who fired the gun that killed Brandon Lee had years of PTSD afterwards. It was the film crew's job to check it, it's negligence on the prop guy's part.
No, he's an actor they probably handle fake guns on the daily. What happened was a tragic accident but i doubt Baldwin in a million years thought what happened could happen.
@Lostpoet plus the prop guns look incredibly real with real looking bullets inside them. The people he's working with in charge of the props seriously messed up.
@MagicaloneANRABF depending on what the scene calls for/how the film shot is done there can be a need for live ammo and real rounds being fired. It probably would make sense to not do that, but movies would lose many layers of realism. Like made for syfy channel shows that have clearly cgi'd muzzle blast.
@stound I disagree. Guys get shot in the chest in movies all the time etc. Looks pretty real without a real bullet. And especially now with special affects. Should be no need
Don’t remember a big deal when this happened to Brandon lee. It’s political.. I don’t like the guy. But this is tabloid over hyped stuff. Charge has already been downgraded. Meanwhile a farmer who had illegals wave (apparently) AK-47s at him is getting the full 9 yards murder charge..
@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Can't really compare to Branon Lee though - that wasn't caused by a live round - it was a blank round firing pushing a previuosly stuck projectile out of the barrrel. Of course tragically the result was the same but the route to get to it was completely different and was harder to predict.
What the heck, the prop crew set him up. It's not his responsibility to worry about if the prop designer put a real freaking gun in and with real ammo as well.
The person being arrested 100% should be the person in charge of the props.
Looking it up, apparently he actually was setup, the armorer told him it was a cold gun (dummy gun with fake ammo, not even blanks)
@iamelijah This to me is where responsibilities lies - the executive have a duty to create a safe working environment and in this case it was clear the weapons were being used for entertainment and lack of armourer (she wasn't allowed to be present due to covid rules) meant the weapons weren't being checked properly.
Yes. Baldwin should have checked. One of the 4 golden rules of gun safety is:
Treat All Guns as Though They are Loaded. From the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) below:
"By treating every firearm as if it is loaded, a habit of safety is developed. Firearms should be loaded only when you are in the field or on the target range or shooting area, ready to shoot. Whenever you handle a firearm, or hand it to someone, always open the action immediately, and visually check the chamber, receiver and magazine to be certain they do not contain any ammunition. Always keep actions open when not in use. Never assume a gun is unloaded — check for yourself! This is considered a mark of an experienced gun handler!"
I don't think he should have even faced a trial. If it were Sci-Fi, would he be expected to check to see it it was a real laser gun? Oops, sorry Mark Hamill, we accidentally gave you a real lightsaber, enjoy your prison cell ...
No, there were people hired to be responsible for the guns on the set. The actor is not responsible to check the gun for live amo. The only reason why Alex was charged is because they were filming in a Red State. Red States will take Hollywood money but hate Hollywood. This was a good opportunity to put the screws to Alex.
Think of what you would do in a situation like that - planning on pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger. I probably would have a chance to substitute the gun for a fake, incapable of shooting a bullet cuz I was in charge. But opted to use real weapons. Of course he should have checked!
Well id say as an actor if you are given what is supposed to be a prop gun you are not going to think to check it you are going to automatically assume its fake and safe so why wouod you think to check a "prop" gun for bullets
Well He likes to party. I wonder if he shows up at the outside studio all fucked up and didn't bother checking the gun thinking: "This is fine. I will be Dirty Dan this Time!" *Points the gun and fires at some random staff*
Other, qualified people are being paid to check the gun. That's how it works. What the hell else are the actors supposed to do? Light the set? Their only mistake was having no budget and hiring hacks.
@pdockal I don't touch guns. Not interested in owning one; they're just not for me.
Were I an actor who needed to use a gun, I would learn about guns as a matter of being able to look credible using them as well as everything I would need to know about how to operate one. That makes perfect sense. I have no interest in guns otherwise and don't anticipate a situation in which I will need to use one.
It's curious, I see more people wishing to punish the man who used the gun on the set without asking the most burning question, which is "What the fuck was live ammo doing on the set?" Until that question is answered, all other concerns are, in my opinion, irrelevant. Live ammo is generally NOT used. Hundreds, probably thousands of scenes including guns have been lensed without incident.
You contend that "uneducated people let others off the hook for their actions". That's a huge, assumptive generalization. It has nothing whatsoever to do with education(though of course education is important). I've sat on a grand jury. We all considered evidence, and based on what we read, saw, and heard, we either 1) agreed that there was sufficient evidence for the case to continue, 2) remanded the case to a lower court, or 3) threw out the case entirely. I was definitely not sitting with a room full of MENSA members(me included), yet I almost always agreed with how the group voted. We absolutely made people stand trial for their crimes...if the evidence was there. In no way was I ok with messing up an innocent person's life.
As a great songwriter once wrote, "Proof is the bottom line for everyone".
@uncalled4 Glad you agree that if your going to touch a gun you should be educated
I've was called into jury duty many times (large US city! ) and those that were less educated condoned stealing (for example) etc .....
Just because you ASSUME no live ammo should be on set is presumptuous of you How do you know the guy in the parking lot next to you doesn't have live ammo in his vehicle which could easily be brought into work etc Once you start assuming concerning guns and gun control incidents occur I don't believe that the law let's you say "i didn't know it was loaded" but because he's a celebrity with lots of lawyers ...........
Think this topic is as far as it goes I don't own guns but have taken gun safety courses
Just because you ASSUME no live ammo should be on set is presumptuous of you --[b]Neither presumptuous, nor assumptive; I looked it up and it has RARELY been used, ever. Let's not even think of what the insurance would be if there were live ammo. Would NEVER happen on a small-budget project such as Rust.[/b].
How do you know the guy in the parking lot next to you doesn't have live ammo in his vehicle which could easily be brought into work etc [b]Well, I'll admit you got me there. I don't if he has guns, ammo, a giraffe, or plutonium, either.[/b]
I don't believe that the law let's you say "i didn't know it was loaded" but because he's a celebrity with lots of lawyers ........... [b]Doesn't seem like a compelling legal defense[/b]
I don't own guns but have taken gun safety courses [b]Seems superfluous to me, but who knows, could come in handy someday. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go check the parking lot.[/b]
