Alec Baldwin indicted for involuntary manslaughter in fatal gunfire on film set

MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world – 280 points –
Alec Baldwin indicted for involuntary manslaughter in fatal gunfire on film set
theguardian.com

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.

174

You are viewing a single comment

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?

I think any reasoning person would say the answer is "yes". Ultimately you are responsible for your own actions.

Think about it like this, remove the context of this being a movie. Your friend hands you a gun and says it's not loaded, should you check before firing the gun at someone? Your friend hands you a bucket of "not acid" and tells you to throw it on someone. Do you check that it's really not acid first?

It seems like the suggestion is that the film set is removing these base line responsibilities for our own actions and I don't think that's very reasonable.

There's a specific reason the actors aren't supposed to check the gun. They cannot do anything that might fuck with a prop and fucking kill someone. They are to only use the weapon they've been given as instructed. It's the job of the master armorer to ensure that all weapons, prop or otherwise, are properly handled.

This is protocol so it's clear who's at fault when an incident like this happens because they can just trace chain of custody. If Baldwin had checked the gun or handled it in any way other than instructed, he would be liable.

By that logic, if someone drives a car with poor brakes and those defective brakes fail causing an accident, the driver is at fault.

In a commercial situation like a monster truck exhibition, there is president that the operator can be held liable for foreseeable mechanical failure that injures people.

This wasn't a kid playing with his mom's gun. It was a commercial production.

Hey I've seen that movie! Wait, it was a pickup truck in a parade and if I remember correctly, the driver got charged.

Say you're an actor, and I hand you a revolver, assuring you that it is not loaded. The scene it's involved in requires that the hammer is already pulled back (as the character in question is threatening someone at gunpoint).

Should you, the actor, check the chamber? With the hammer back and the cylinder locked, doing this would require a complex maneuver of blocking the hammer with your finger, PULLING THE TRIGGER, and then rotating the cylinder to look at the one that was chambered - then rotating it back, and re-cocking it.

Now imagine, being an actor that is a novice with revolvers, you mix up which spot you're meant to block with your finger. If, as you suggest, there is any chance at all that there's a live round in the chamber, aren't you introducing further risk with this maneuver?

Yes, you should that's like the number one rule of handling actual firearms.

I feel like we are minimizing the fact they were using actual fully functional fire arms on a set which is absolutely not normal.

Sounds like a great argument for the actor first receiving a gun where the hammer is not pulled back.

If you get the gun in a state where safety checks cannot be done safely, someone has fucked up.

It's far better for the actor to know how to cock a hammer, have them go through the safety checks to make sure everything checks out, and then cock the hammer.

Basic gun safety involves handling guns as if they were loaded, so a gun should only be passed to someone without the hammer cocked and also with the safety on, because the gun will be assumed to be loaded by whoever receives it, and handing someone a gun that's loaded with the hammer cocked is a monumentally stupid idea.