Alec Baldwin 'heartbroken' and cooperating with police after fatal onset shooting of Halyna Hutchins

[Jub]

'Should' being the operative term here.I agree it's a damned good idea and should be done, but is it?

If it wasn't done everybody involved in that process should eat a negligent death charge and Bladwin should eat a manslaughter charge.

[Formless]

Again, you need Probable Cause, and while you might be able to pin something on Baldwin or the other individuals who handled the gun, there is no such thing as a "negligent death" statute in the US criminal justice system. Usually that is handled either as a manslaughter charge, or its brought up as a civil lawsuit against the company or individuals responsible. Know the law before shooting your mouth off about arresting people. Its getting infuriating.

That said, I've had to review firearm safety multiple times, both when I was first exposed to guns by family members, and later when getting a hunting license, and every source agrees that rule #1 of gun safety is to treat your firearm as loaded and ready to fire, if not at all times (as my family taught, in order to drill best practices into my head), then at least until you have verified with your own eyes that it is not (as would be best practice on a movie set where violations of rule #2-- always point the gun in a safe direction-- are inevitable by nature). Baldwin is almost certainly responsible for not double checking the gun himself, just as the armorer and prop master are both responsible for failing to safety check it properly before handing it to him. I agree with those who say its not that hard to safety check a Colt SAA revolver just because its not a swing out or top break revolver. You must learn how to handle any weapon you are going to be handling before using the damn thing. And if it was too hard to handle, they should have handed him a swing out or top break weapon instead, anachronism be damned. Or if you want to remain faithful to the period, give him a cap and ball gun; they would still be around at the time, even if they were obsolete. Its trivial to confirm a cap and ball gun has no caps on the cylinder that could set it off.

But really, if it was too much of a hassle to learn how to safety check a Colt SAA, I doubt Baldwin would have bothered to learn how to safety check a swing out or top break revolver either.

Certainly people massively fucked up here, even if no evidence of foul play is found, and considering they had live ammo on set when they weren't supposed to, its possible someone wanted an accident to happen. I don't think that can be ruled out yet. Certainly if I were the police I would consider the possibility.

[Formless]

Ghetto Edit: In fact, scratch what I said about anachronism. There were top break and the less commonly talked about tip-up revolvers dating to the 1870's they could have handed to the cast such as the Smith & Wesson Model 2 army and the Smith & Wesson Model 3. The only excuse for handing Baldwin a gun he couldn't handle himself is either laziness, incompetence, gross cost cutting measures, or a combination of all three.

[Batman]

Or maybe the story being told in the movie requiring this specific make and model gun?

[Formless]

I cannot for the life of me imagine any story that would require a Colt SAA. I mean, what's special about it? Both it and the S&W Model 3/Schofield were used by the US military. One requires more training to understand its use, that's about all I can think of. And to be blunt, most story writers in Hollywood aren't clever enough or knowledgeable about firearms to write a script that would require a Colt SAA. Hell, most classic Westerns don't even bother with using period correct weapons, and the audience hardly ever notices! Even the people who do notice understand that the Western is a bit like a fairy tale, so it doesn't actually matter even to them.

Edit: We will probably never know their reasoning for using a Colt SAA. Probably they just thought it looked cool or were fooled by the Colt mystique. But I assure you, no script that initially called for a Colt couldn't be rewritten to use a Smith instead.

[Broomstick]

Even for an actor, you should be able to get them to participate in a few days worth of basic firearms safety training in addition to the usual on-site safety briefings that go with opening a new set.

From what I've read on the internet it is often the case actors get some sort of firearms training but it is not required - and on a low-budget production it wouldn't surprise me to see it omitted.

[Broomstick]

Edit: We will probably never know their reasoning for using a Colt SAA. Probably they just thought it looked cool or were fooled by the Colt mystique. But I assure you, no script that initially called for a Colt couldn't be rewritten to use a Smith instead.

I'm thinking it may have been as simple as "it was available". It wasn't actually a period antique, apparently, but a modern reproduction. There's nothing wrong with a Colt SAA clone in competent hands.

The worst screw up was whomever brought live rounds to the set. If there had been no live rounds there would have been no death even with a mishandled gun. That said, of course, not mishandling a gun is also a desirable situation. There are supposed to be multiple layers of safety with weapons on a set, just as there is supposed to be safety considerations for stunt work as well.

[Jub]

Again, you need Probable Cause, and while you might be able to pin something on Baldwin or the other individuals who handled the gun, there is no such thing as a "negligent death" statute in the US criminal justice system. Usually that is handled either as a manslaughter charge, or its brought up as a civil lawsuit against the company or individuals responsible. Know the law before shooting your mouth off about arresting people. Its getting infuriating.

Criminally negligent homicide seems as if it would fit the bill, does it not?

Also, I'm sorry for being familiar with Canadian law and not American law. Criminal negligence does get charged up here often enough in these sorts of cases.

[Formless]

Again, you need Probable Cause, and while you might be able to pin something on Baldwin or the other individuals who handled the gun, there is no such thing as a "negligent death" statute in the US criminal justice system. Usually that is handled either as a manslaughter charge, or its brought up as a civil lawsuit against the company or individuals responsible. Know the law before shooting your mouth off about arresting people. Its getting infuriating.

Criminally negligent homicide seems as if it would fit the bill, does it not?

Also, I'm sorry for being familiar with Canadian law and not American law. Criminal negligence does get charged up here often enough in these sorts of cases.

Okay. In both the US and UK, Criminal Negligence is a concept in law rather than a set of actual offenses. Basically it means that the usual standard of mens rea (i.e. Guilty Mind) that is required to have committed the crime in question is not necessary to charge the person in question, because a "reasonable person" could have known and prevented the harmful outcome. Its a crime of omission, in other words. There are levels of responsibility at work here, from mere non-feasance (acting without thinking) to recklessness/malfeasance (knowingly putting someone at risk). It all effects sentencing. So you can charge someone with murder 2/manslaughter based on negligence, which could very well happen here to any one of the people who handled the gun on the set of Rust, or perhaps to the person who brought actual bullets on set. However, there are limits to the concept-- for instance, IIRC it can't substitute the actual malice needed to be guilty of First Degree murder. That would require proof that the bullets were brought on set for the specific purposes of killing someone. And you can't just charge the production company as a whole with the crime. It has to be someone who handled the gun or the ammo. That's just the way it works around here.

Negligence can also have meaning separate to this in civil law, where you can sue for damages based on a party's negligent behavior. That is quite common, and could also very well happen if Halyna's family decides to press the issue. But they would likely be suing the production company rather than any one person involved-- that's where the money is most concentrated, after all. The businessmen involved will most likely settle if that happens. They obviously would never win a lawsuit over the issue, so it gives them some ability to control the financial damage to the company.

[Formless]

Edit: We will probably never know their reasoning for using a Colt SAA. Probably they just thought it looked cool or were fooled by the Colt mystique. But I assure you, no script that initially called for a Colt couldn't be rewritten to use a Smith instead.

I'm thinking it may have been as simple as "it was available". It wasn't actually a period antique, apparently, but a modern reproduction. There's nothing wrong with a Colt SAA clone in competent hands.

The worst screw up was whomever brought live rounds to the set. If there had been no live rounds there would have been no death even with a mishandled gun. That said, of course, not mishandling a gun is also a desirable situation. There are supposed to be multiple layers of safety with weapons on a set, just as there is supposed to be safety considerations for stunt work as well.

Honestly, I would be concerned with this production company's ability to handle even a blank firing weapon. I mean, all it takes to turn a gun filled with blanks into a deadly weapon is some idiot sticking the barrel into the dirt and getting a rock lodged in it. Normally a good way to turn a gun into a bomb, but with a blank you get a projectile weapon again. Having sufficient and experienced staff in the armory department is a must, and it sounds like they were too cheap to care.

[Batman]

OF COURSE they were too cheap to care. The union people didn't walk out because they didn't like the producer's deodorant

[Soontir C'boath]

Yea, not sure what we're arguing about here really in regards to probable cause. It's not like the producers at the very least were ignorant of ONGOING UNSAFE CONDITIONS when we know the union workers WALKED THE FUCK OUT because of it. Then hired scabs and kept going.

[Broomstick]

Negligence can also have meaning separate to this in civil law, where you can sue for damages based on a party's negligent behavior. That is quite common, and could also very well happen if Halyna's family decides to press the issue. But they would likely be suing the production company rather than any one person involved-- that's where the money is most concentrated, after all. The businessmen involved will most likely settle if that happens. They obviously would never win a lawsuit over the issue, so it gives them some ability to control the financial damage to the company.

The only flaw in that line of reasoning is if Baldwin is perceived to have deep enough pockets to make going after him personally worthwhile, which he might. A quick google indicates he's worth about $60 million, which is probably enough to make it worthwhile for a lawyer to take the case if the Hutchins family wants to pursue it. (Or Joel Souza, as he was also shot even if not fatally)

Yea, not sure what we're arguing about here really in regards to probable cause. It's not like the producers at the very least were ignorant of ONGOING UNSAFE CONDITIONS when we know the union workers WALKED THE FUCK OUT because of it. Then hired scabs and kept going.

Except... it wasn't a scab working as armorer or assistant director (the two people who handled the gun prior to Baldwin pulling the trigger) and Hutchins was operating the camera because they had not hired scab camera operators. So in this instance I wouldn't blame "scabs". The problem was the very same people whose actions had contributed to the union walk-off. That, and maybe not enough people leading to distraction on the part of the folks who were left.

[LadyTevar]

Okay. In both the US and UK, Criminal Negligence is a concept in law rather than a set of actual offenses. Basically it means that the usual standard of mens rea (i.e. Guilty Mind) that is required to have committed the crime in question is not necessary to charge the person in question, because a "reasonable person" could have known and prevented the harmful outcome. Its a crime of omission, in other words. There are levels of responsibility at work here, from mere non-feasance (acting without thinking) to recklessness/malfeasance (knowingly putting someone at risk). It all effects sentencing. So you can charge someone with murder 2/manslaughter based on negligence, which could very well happen here to any one of the people who handled the gun on the set of Rust, or perhaps to the person who brought actual bullets on set. However, there are limits to the concept-- for instance, IIRC it can't substitute the actual malice needed to be guilty of First Degree murder. That would require proof that the bullets were brought on set for the specific purposes of killing someone. And you can't just charge the production company as a whole with the crime. It has to be someone who handled the gun or the ammo. That's just the way it works around here.

Negligence can also have meaning separate to this in civil law, where you can sue for damages based on a party's negligent behavior. That is quite common, and could also very well happen if Halyna's family decides to press the issue. But they would likely be suing the production company rather than any one person involved-- that's where the money is most concentrated, after all. The businessmen involved will most likely settle if that happens. They obviously would never win a lawsuit over the issue, so it gives them some ability to control the financial damage to the company.

So, in essence, Baldwin would probably fall under non-feasance, as he was acting without thinking the gun was loaded.
At this point, I don't think we can call malfeasance on even Souza, because as far as we've heard, he didn't KNOWINGLY put someone at risk. From what we know now, he handed the weapon over as "safe to use". We have yet to hear from him or anywhere else that he actually CHECKED to see if it was loaded.

[Soontir C'boath]

Yea, not sure what we're arguing about here really in regards to probable cause. It's not like the producers at the very least were ignorant of ONGOING UNSAFE CONDITIONS when we know the union workers WALKED THE FUCK OUT because of it. Then hired scabs and kept going.

Except... it wasn't a scab working as armorer or assistant director (the two people who handled the gun prior to Baldwin pulling the trigger) and Hutchins was operating the camera because they had not hired scab camera operators. So in this instance I wouldn't blame "scabs". The problem was the very same people whose actions had contributed to the union walk-off. That, and maybe not enough people leading to distraction on the part of the folks who were left.

Please take a step back. I am clearly blaming the producers in what I wrote. I believe I clearly stated what I meant, but I'll reiterate that the union workers WALKED OUT SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE PRODUCERS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND THEN HIRED SCABS AND KEPT GOING ANYWAY.

[Zwinmar]

As for the model of gun used it is my understanding that cap and ball revolvers were used for many years after the cartridge was invented because the handler was familiar with them, and the rounds were actually about the same power, the .44 being on par with a modern .45, so there was no real need to buy and new gun. I'll see if I can't find the video that talks about it, I think it was Bloke on the Range...maybe.

****Edit: sorry its InRangeTV, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWCqNViqQC8

[Broomstick]

Yea, not sure what we're arguing about here really in regards to probable cause. It's not like the producers at the very least were ignorant of ONGOING UNSAFE CONDITIONS when we know the union workers WALKED THE FUCK OUT because of it. Then hired scabs and kept going.

Except... it wasn't a scab working as armorer or assistant director (the two people who handled the gun prior to Baldwin pulling the trigger) and Hutchins was operating the camera because they had not hired scab camera operators. So in this instance I wouldn't blame "scabs". The problem was the very same people whose actions had contributed to the union walk-off. That, and maybe not enough people leading to distraction on the part of the folks who were left.

Please take a step back. I am clearly blaming the producers in what I wrote. I believe I clearly stated what I meant, but I'll reiterate that the union workers WALKED OUT SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE PRODUCERS DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND THEN HIRED SCABS AND KEPT GOING ANYWAY.

Yes, I read that the first time.

The only reason to keep saying "scab, scab, scab" is to imply there is something horribly wrong with the new hires. Why? Especially since I see absolutely nothing to tie them to the shooting.

Clearly, something was amiss on the set, but in this instance "scabs" and "fatal accident" may be a correlation and not a causation. IF the producers thought the dispute was mostly over pay and accommodations they might have disregard complaints about safety as people just piling on the complaints. Although failure to pay people their wages is a crime itself (I have a link to my adventures in court over that situation in my sig). Also, failure to heed complaints about safety is ALSO a Bad Thing. IF that was the case, that wage theft was going on, I fully support the walk out (having done the same myself in the past) but IF the armorer had been doing the job of armorer (and only that job) this fatal accident might never have occurred.

The people directly involved in this accident - the armorer, the assistant director, the director, the cinematographer, and the lead actor - were none of them "scabs". Even if the walk-out had not occurred this same disaster may have happened anyway, with the same collection of people involved. Or maybe they would have been less stressed/distracted and the problem(s) would have been caught earlier in the disaster-chain and the accident prevented.

Another problem, I gather, was that they had not in fact hired enough people to replaced everyone who had walked off. Again, leading to stress and distraction and a greater likelihood of something tragic occurring. But that's not the fault of the new hires, so why even mention them, much less use an insulting term for them?

[Jub]

The only reason to keep saying "scab, scab, scab" is to imply there is something horribly wrong with the new hires. Why? Especially since I see absolutely nothing to tie them to the shooting.

The reasons to keep saying it are:

1) Fuck scabs. They undermine unions and keep rates below where they should be.
2) Fuck anybody who hires scabs for the above reasons.
3) Film is often a business where any job is a good job, so to have your union crew walk off the set is highly unusual and a sign of a horrible production.

[Ralin]

The only reason to keep saying "scab, scab, scab" is to imply there is something horribly wrong with the new hires. Why? Especially since I see absolutely nothing to tie them to the shooting.

Because as Jub shows some people are really entitled and are mainly interested in this as an excuse to grandstand about how people of means are evil and how the Working Class (read: them and people they deign to recognize) should be able to dictate how they run their businesses and use their personal property. Not unlike how Trumpists see it as a chance to score a dig on someone who mocked their leader.

[Jub]

Because as Jub shows some people are really entitled and are mainly interested in this as an excuse to grandstand about how people of means are evil and how the Working Class (read: them and people they deign to recognize) should be able to dictate how they run their businesses and use their personal property. Not unlike how Trumpists see it as a chance to score a dig on someone who mocked their leader.

Go fuck yourself Ralin. Scabs are never a good thing and serve only to make production cheaper so that those of means can more efficiently line their pockets. If this production wasn't incompetent from top to bottom they wouldn't have needed scabs in the first place and a woman wouldn't be dead.

[Ralin]

Go fuck yourself Ralin.

Go whine to your therapist.

Scabs are never a good thing and serve only to make production cheaper so that those of means can more efficiently line their pockets.

Yeah, they are, because people of means shouldn't have to deal with what amounts to extortion from people they hired to perform services deciding that they should be the ones in charge.

and serve only to make production cheaper so that those of means can more efficiently line their pockets.

Gasp. A business trying to cut costs?! Outlandish!

If I was in that position I'd cheerfully pay a premium just to shutdown greedy little fuckheads like you.

If this production wasn't incompetent from top to bottom they wouldn't have needed scabs in the first place and a woman wouldn't be dead.

Ever consider that they might have had fewer problems if the unionists had done their jobs without getting too big for their britches?

[Jub]

Yeah, they are, because people of means shouldn't have to deal with what amounts to extortion from people they hired to perform services deciding that they should be the ones in charge.

Oh wow... So I guess you'd be happy if we went back to the days of the military shooting miners for going on strike over deadly working conditions. After all, why should the rich have to give a single fuck if the lower classes live a few extra years, they can just hire more.

Gasp. A business trying to cut costs?! Outlandish!

It should be. The goal of society should be wealth for all, not for the ruthless few.

If I was in that position I'd cheerfully pay a premium just to shutdown greedy little fuckheads like you.

So greed is good if you already have money but is bad if you're poor...

Ever consider that they might have had fewer problems if the unionists had done their jobs without getting too big for their britches?

They may also have had fewer problems if they didn't mock employees for requesting accommodation which didn't require 4-extra hours of round trip driving that other parts of the crew didn't have to endure. But hey, I've never run a production company that has killed somebody due to my being cheap and worthless so what could I possibly know about anything...

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well, shit.

Attorneys for Rust armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed have said they believe live bullets were mixed in with dummy rounds as part of a “deliberate” attempt to sabotage filming.

Her lawyer Jason Bowles today sensationally claimed that he and others had “assumed” somebody had put a live bullet in the box of dummy rounds.

“The central question to this case is, how did a live round get on set, and who put that on the set?”, attorney Mr Bowles asked in an appearance on NBC’s Today.

“There was a box of dummy rounds, that contains only dummy rounds. Hannah loaded rounds from that box into the handgun.”

Ms Gutierrez-Reed, who looked after all guns during the filming of the indie Western, has come under intense scrutiny as she was responsible for loading the weapon prior to the fatal shooting on set in New Mexico last month.

Cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot by Alec Baldwin as he rehearsed a scene that saw him fire a gun at the camera, while director Joel Souza was also wounded.

Mr Bowles continued: “We’re assuming somebody put the live round in that box. If you think about that, the person who put the live round in the box of dummy rounds had to have the purpose of sabotaging the set.

“There’s no other reason that you would do that, that you would mix that live round in with a dummy round.”

Mr Bowles noted that crew members had walked off the set the day before amid a dispute over working conditions.

Ahead of the 21 October shooting, Mr Baldwin had been handed the gun by assistant director Dave Halls, who announced it was a “cold gun” as he passed him the weapon, after carrying out a safety check with Ms Gutierrez-Reed.

An affidavit filed in Santa Fe County Magistrate Court last week revealed that Mr Halls had told investigators the gun safety check may not have been carried out properly.

He said that prior to the shooting incident, Ms Gutierrez-Reed had “showed him” the weapon and that he “could only remember seeing three rounds”.

According to the affidavit, he “advised he should have checked all of them, but didn’t, and couldn’t recall if she spun the drum (to confirm there were no live bullets)”.

Mr Halls and Ms Gutierrez-Reed have both faced questions over their actions on the set, with reports that crew had previously raised concerns about lax gun safety.

It was only the second film that Ms Gutierrez-Reed had worked on, while it has emerged that Mr Halls was previously fired from 2019’s Freedom’s Path after a crew member was wounded in another firearm accident.

The Wrap reported last month that crew members on Rust had allegedly passed time between filming by shooting at beer cans, using guns from the set.

Prosecutors have not ruled out criminal charges over the shooting, as investigations into the incident continue.

If true, that would muddy the waters considerably...

[Broomstick]

The only reason to keep saying "scab, scab, scab" is to imply there is something horribly wrong with the new hires. Why? Especially since I see absolutely nothing to tie them to the shooting.

The reasons to keep saying it are:

1) Fuck scabs. They undermine unions and keep rates below where they should be.

Fuck unions. In the US they have a long history of reserving the best and highest paying jobs for people of the proper complexions: minorities and women need not apply, fuck you if you don't have a relative to "sponsor" your admission to an apprenticeship program. A long history of assault and battery on other people just trying to hold down a job, or who don't automatically kowtow to the union line or dare to ask questions.

Of course, that doesn't justify opening fire on miners wanting less than deadly working conditions, but unions aren't composed of saints and have their own load of blood on their hands. They can be as bad as billionaire capitalists. Which is why I favor a balance of power rather than one side or the other dominating.

But hey, fuck subtlety, or nuance, or even history, right?

Just ignore the fact there are situation where the scabs might not even know they're scabs until after they're already on the job - they just answered a want-ad, or applied for an open position without any knowledge of an on-going labor dispute but fuck innocent bystanders or people who might have been lied to by either the owners, the union, or both, right?

2) Fuck anybody who hires scabs for the above reasons.

Now, on that point we agree - owners who try to evade reasonable worker demands by hiring people under even worse terms deserve a pineapple sideways up the ass. See, we're not that far apart on some topics.

3) Film is often a business where any job is a good job, so to have your union crew walk off the set is highly unusual and a sign of a horrible production.

Agreed.

Again, there is no dispute that the workplace was shit. If nothing else, a woman lying dead in a puddle of her own blood is testament to that.

Again, though - were the people hired even aware they were scabs?. Los Angeles/Hollywood requires union shops. Part of the reason for filming someplace like New Mexico is being able to hire outside the union. Were the new people even aware of the labor dispute? Did they know they were being hired as scabs?

Because shit like that does happen, and the new people have no idea what they're walking into, or that they are scabs, until they are threatened with bodily harm, or get their car tires slashed or all the other bullshit that has occurred on labor-dispute job sites. Because, seriously, do you think the scumbag owners are going to tell those new hires "oh, by the way - you are being hired as scabs because the union guys wouldn't take the abuse anymore"? Lies, lies, and more lies all the way down. But fuck those people just looking for a wage, right? They deserve whatever they get, because the unionists can't actually get at the real cause of the trouble, the owners, to enact a little street justice, so take it out on the next set of victims.

A little different if someone goes in knowing they're a scab, but since we don't actually know either way in this case maybe we should reserve judgement, hmm?

[Gandalf]

Except... it wasn't a scab working as armorer or assistant director (the two people who handled the gun prior to Baldwin pulling the trigger) and Hutchins was operating the camera because they had not hired scab camera operators. So in this instance I wouldn't blame "scabs". The problem was the very same people whose actions had contributed to the union walk-off. That, and maybe not enough people leading to distraction on the part of the folks who were left.

Someone who keeps working when the union walks off can be classed as a scab. So the armourer was indeed one.