Alec Baldwin shoots and kills a woman, injures a man.

Page 26 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
Oh my!

"Alec Baldwin was charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Halyna Hutchins.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was the armorer on the film "Rust," was also charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter."



Gosh, whoever would have thought he'd be criminally charged for killing the women and ...........NO intent!
Uh, first do you understand involuntary manslaughter means? Second.. to tell you how fucked up this is, can you explain how you can be charged for two counts of involuntary manslaughter when only 1 person was killed? was she killed twice? I am not saying he should or shouldn't be charged, but there is some fuckery going on.. kind of like the fuckery that goes on inside your head.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
One of the arguments is they are charging him as a Producer, he chose the Gun Handler. But they are also charging him as his role as an actor. Just silly.
Add that explanation to the fuckery.. same person, same "crime". So wouldn't that fall into double jeopardy where you can't be charged for the same crime twice?
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
Add that explanation to the fuckery.. same person, same "crime". So wouldn't that fall into double jeopardy where you can't be charged for the same crime twice?
-shrugs-

that said, as the producer he was guilty. As management he was responsible for creating a extremely unsafe working place.

Hiring scabs after the union walked for unsafe working conditions will do him in.


He might not be the fire arms expert, but this was the third accidental discharge of that firearm on set. At some point, you do not need to be an expert.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
-shrugs-

that said, as the producer he was guilty. As management he was responsible for creating a extremely unsafe working place.

Hiring scabs after the union walked for unsafe working conditions will do him in.

So, are you saying that people where routinely getting shot on the set? Because that is the only reasonable conclusion one can come up with for sighting unsafe work conditions as the reasoning this happened. Oh wait.. you are a right wing nut job.. you don't use logic and reasoning.. you just post stupid shit without thinking!
 
Last edited:

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
So, are you saying that people where routinely getting shot on the set?
no, I am saying that after the 2nd negligent discharge the union walked on safety reasons.

Then management (also known as producer Baldwin) hired a bunch of scabs. Then the gun had its 3rd negligent discharge and someone died.

Don't need to be an expert to know that repeated incidents of hot gunfire makes for an unsafe workplace.

Lock the greedy man up, he wanted his movie on the cheap and did not care about obvious safety issues.
 
Last edited:

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
no, I am saying that after the 2nd negligent discharge the union walked on safety reasons.

Then management (also known as producer Baldwin) hired a bunch of scabs. Then the gun had its 3rd negligent discharge and someone died.

Don't need to be an expert to know that repeated incidents of hot gunfire makes for an unsafe workplace.

Lock the greedy man up, he wanted his movie on the cheap and did not care about obvious safety issues.
I had to go read up on those claims.

I noticed that these "claims" that where made after the shooting, about incidents that happened the prior week, are not consistent across multiple articles with drastic different claims and details of how those claimed accidental discharges happened (different people involved, different explanations of what happened completely). What is consistent across all of the articles is the unpaid work and work conditions. I understand people tend to have slight differences in what they believe they saw/heard, but the "claims" are so contrasting across the articles and the timing, for them to be taken at face value. Besides, if they walked off the set due to these claimed incidents, and it was about their safety, as you want to believe.. why did it happen only hours before the shooting, and not the week before, or at the very least, the Saturday before when the last "claim" supposedly happened? Seems you don't recognize manipulated hype either by the media or by those that walked off, to "sell" their story, or build up their "reasoning" for walking off the set. At the very least, there is more to the story that you are not being told, because it doesn't support the narrative. But I could be wrong.

Also, hiring scabs is not illegal. It's frowned on, but not illegal, and has zero to do with the shooting as they where just brought on that same day, if at all, and where not involved with the guns. (You are grasping at straws here for sure as it's not relevant).

Now, I admit I am not fully up to date on every detail, but it seems from what I have read, and the time line (roughly 7 days), the unsafe work condition claim isn't very valid.
 
Last edited:

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,599
5,340
106
I had to go read up on those claims.

I noticed that these "claims" that where made after the shooting, about incidents that happened the prior week, are not consistent across multiple articles with drastic different claims and details of how those claimed accidental discharges happened (different people involved, different explanations of what happened completely). What is consistent across all of the articles is the unpaid work and work conditions. I understand people tend to have slight differences in what they believe they saw/heard, but the "claims" are so contrasting across the articles and the timing, for them to be taken at face value. Besides, if they walked off the set due to these claimed incidents, and it was about their safety, as you want to believe.. why did it happen only hours before the shooting, and not the week before, or at the very least, the Saturday before when the last "claim" supposedly happened? Seems you don't recognize manipulated hype either by the media or by those that walked off, to "sell" their story, or build up their "reasoning" for walking off the set. At the very least, there is more to the story that you are not being told, because it doesn't support the narrative. But I could be wrong.

Also, hiring scabs is not illegal. It's frowned on, but not illegal, and has zero to do with the shooting as they where just brought on that same day, if at all, and where not involved with the guns. (You are grasping at straws here for sure as it's not relevant).

Now, I admit I am not fully up to date on every detail, but it seems from what I have read, and the time line (roughly 7 days), the unsafe work condition claim isn't very valid.
It is in the police report:
Reese Price, a key grip who was eight feet behind Hutchins and wounded director Joel Souza in the church (the filmmaker receiving a shoulder blow from the discharged prop gun) said that the prior issues on the production entailed an “accidental discharge” occurring “twice last week all in one day. One of the accidental discharges occurred by ‘armorer girl’ who was messing with a gun. The ‘armorer girl’ had the gun pointed down, when it went off accidentally. The second time, one of the stunt actors went to cock the gun and it went off accidentally inside a shack. Reese expressed his concern about accidental discharges occurring on this particular set, which is something that is not supposed to happen” read the police report.


The documents also provides further details about the conditions on set leading up to the accident, in which it was reported that there were other misfires of weapons during production. On the day of the fatal accident, October 21, 2021, six crew members had already walked off set because of their concerns.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,973
7,891
136
Seriously do you really believe that regulation would stop it ? Seriously?


I mean it did so much for marijuana use and during prohibition for alcohol use.


Those are entirely different types of laws, applying to entirely different populations.

Put it another way, do you really believe that if all existing health & safety regulations were rescinded, that workplace injuries and accidents (including on movie sets) would not dramatically increase over time? Pretty clear to me that there would be a lot more of this sort of thing if there weren't already a lot of regulations in place.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,973
7,891
136
The case against Baldwin though is a political witch hunt.

Can't say I'm convinced of that. Though I do find it odd that that Halls guy has been let off.

The distinction between the role of the police, the prosecutors and the jury in deciding these things is something that often puzzles me (it often comes up in cases here - I find myself particularly noticing those involving killer drivers). It seems its a three-stage process, and at each stage those potentially culpable get another chance to escape accountability.

I don't quite see why it isn't left to a jury to decide how to allocate responsibility between all those involved (in what seems, in this case, like a multi-causal fiasco). But it seems as if the police, in their investigatory role, can pick and choose who has to face the next stage of the process. And then, presumably, the prosecutors get to decide who actually ends up facing a jury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,973
7,891
136
Also I'm pretty indifferent to whether Baldwin in particular goes to jail or not. Inclined neither to defend him nor bay for his blood. I only vaguely know who he is (probably have seen him in some movie at some point, but if so, I don't remember it). What seems more important to me is to understand what structural or procedural failings led to this happening (to an innocent woman, who could have been any ordinary worker - doesn't sound as if she had any involvement with the string of failures that led to this) and what changes need to be made to the regulations and the law to prevent it ever happening again (though enforcing existing laws, so that people _know_ they will be enforced, is clearly part of that).

(I get that Taj seems to believe that because prohibition didn't work, there's no point having any laws at all about anything, but I don't find that a compelling argument)
 
  • Like
Reactions: [DHT]Osiris

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,512
29,098
146
The rightwinger fascists need this one desperately for two explicit reasons

1) simply and obviously their hatred of Alec Baldwin for fairly and justly portraying their Golden Cow Trump as the idiotic evil hapless piece of human garbage that he factually is (rightwing snowflakes will never forgive such assaults to the narratives that they construct to define their fragile personas)

2) despite the tragic accident that this is clearly is, when humans get involved in anything, they absolutely need this to be dumped on a human, because it must never be decided that, despite risks and known accidents existing in the world that we live in, the amplification of accident > death due to the simple fact in this case that a dangerous murder gun is the singular reason that death happened.

They can't understand that fact, for one thing. Guns are never dangerous in their pea skulls. Never a problem. Never a risk. Murder can never happen with a gun BECAUSE of a gun! In fact, this is only murder because we already HATE the primary suspect, so its OK, and therefore MURDER by an evil human with some undefined intent, and not a gun that singularly caused this death! Their brains can only calculate this situation because the target is one of a small handful of villains that they had already constructed for themselves, and the decision going against them (as likely), will just be another thorn in their fragile narrative that only people kill people! Never our precious murder toys that were only ever designed to do the single job of murder!

LoL, just imagine their reaction to this story if you simply swap Alec Baldwin with Clint Eastwood or James Woods, lol. Just imagine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

Paratus

Lifer
Jun 4, 2004
16,613
13,296
146
It is in the police report:



Well thanks to the tireless efforts of some of our posters in this thread we know that this part of the police report is a complete fabrication:

“The second time, one of the stunt actors went to cock the gun and it went off accidentally inside a shack. Reese expressed his concern about accidental discharges occurring on this particular set, which is something that is not supposed to happen” read the police report.”

You see they said that experts at the FBI have verified beyond all doubt that there was just no way for that gun to ever accidentally discharge without the trigger being pulled. Which is how they know Baldwin is guilty.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
It is in the police report:



Just because it's in the police report doesn't mean it's factual. Reese Price was wounded during the shooting, which is where that information in the police report came from per your own quote from your article. The FBI pretty much has proven his statement at least partially false.. So, we have to question if the rest is false as well, and we have to consider his motives since he was wounded, as well as the claims of unpaid work and bad work conditions. It also doesn't answer why the 6 camera crew members waited till hours before the shooting to leave if it had anything to do with the claims of misfiring guns that happened the week prior.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
Also I'm pretty indifferent to whether Baldwin in particular goes to jail or not. Inclined neither to defend him nor bay for his blood. I only vaguely know who he is (probably have seen him in some movie at some point, but if so, I don't remember it). What seems more important to me is to understand what structural or procedural failings led to this happening (to an innocent woman, who could have been any ordinary worker - doesn't sound as if she had any involvement with the string of failures that led to this) and what changes need to be made to the regulations and the law to prevent it ever happening again (though enforcing existing laws, so that people _know_ they will be enforced, is clearly part of that).

(I get that Taj seems to believe that because prohibition didn't work, there's no point having any laws at all about anything, but I don't find that a compelling argument)
I agree, but the main question that really needs to be answered is why was there live ammunition on the set to begin with?

As for a movie you most likely saw him in and don't realize it, as he was much, much younger was "The Hunt for Red October with Sean Connery." He played Jack Ryan.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,406
136
I agree, but the main question that really needs to be answered is why was there live ammunition on the set to begin with?

As for a movie you most likely saw him in and don't realize it, as he was much, much younger was "The Hunt for Red October with Sean Connery."
One of the all time great movies! (I don't care about Connery making the Vilnius Schoolmaster from Scotland, apparently, haha)
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,004
12,071
146
I agree, but the main question that really needs to be answered is why was there live ammunition on the set to begin with?

As for a movie you most likely saw him in and don't realize it, as he was much, much younger was "The Hunt for Red October with Sean Connery." He played Jack Ryan.
Plot twist, Baldwin did, and that's what they'll actually nail him for :p
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
So from what I can surmise... it is not always a crime to kill someone. IF....
  • Self defense.
  • Not responsible.
And given that this was a movie set, people other than the actors have the responsibility to make it a safe and secure environment. Actors are given the tools / props to act with. In this case it was a real gun with real ammo. That is not the responsibility of the actor. Live ammo should not have been anywhere near them.

What makes this case, is that Alec Baldwin was also a producer. At least partially responsible for the production and safety standards that were apparently lax.
However... this is where it get real screwy. If the man, as the actor, was not responsible... then who was? The man who handed him a loaded gun, or the armorer who allowed a loaded gun onto set? Baldwin for hiring the armorer in the first place? If he even did. This is a game of hot potato as to avoid responsibility, each participant will assign blame onto the other.

So it comes down to specifics. Who did what, where, when, why?
In other words, it's a bloody mess and NO ONE here has all the facts of the case. None of us are fit to prejudge this.

If I was on a Jury for the case against Baldwin, I would need something MORE than him simply pulling the trigger. Did he order the assistant to grab a gun without the armorer present? Something like that. Otherwise I would let him walk as simply the man who pulled the trigger. I may not be so kind to the assistant or the armorer, though without them pulling the trigger... that might be a lesser charge.
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
11,480
7,884
136
So from what I can surmise... it is not always a crime to kill someone. IF....
  • Self defense.
  • Not responsible.
And given that this was a movie set, people other than the actors have the responsibility to make it a safe and secure environment. Actors are given the tools / props to act with. In this case it was a real gun with real ammo. That is not the responsibility of the actor. Live ammo should not have been anywhere near them.

What makes this case, is that Alec Baldwin was also a producer. At least partially responsible for the production and safety standards that were apparently lax.
However... this is where it get real screwy. If the man, as the actor, was not responsible... then who was? The man who handed him a loaded gun, or the armorer who allowed a loaded gun onto set? Baldwin for hiring the armorer in the first place? If he even did. This is a game of hot potato as to avoid responsibility, each participant will assign blame onto the other.

So it comes down to specifics. Who did what, where, when, why?
In other words, it's a bloody mess and NO ONE here has all the facts of the case. None of us are fit to prejudge this.

If I was on a Jury for the case against Baldwin, I would need something MORE than him simply pulling the trigger. Did he order the assistant to grab a gun without the armorer present? Something like that. Otherwise I would let him walk as simply the man who pulled the trigger. I may not be so kind to the assistant or the armorer, though without them pulling the trigger... that might be a lesser charge.

He can make the same argument in his defense for either role (actor/producer). It was not his job to inspect or provide the weapons. It was up to the armorer/prop master as it's their direct job. The same 430 witnesses that will say it's not the actor's job will also say they've never seen a producer directly inspect a weapon on set. Hell, producers are often not even on set.
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,718
1,278
136
The rightwinger fascists need this one desperately for two explicit reasons

1) simply and obviously their hatred of Alec Baldwin for fairly and justly portraying their Golden Cow Trump as the idiotic evil hapless piece of human garbage that he factually is (rightwing snowflakes will never forgive such assaults to the narratives that they construct to define their fragile personas)

2) despite the tragic accident that this is clearly is, when humans get involved in anything, they absolutely need this to be dumped on a human, because it must never be decided that, despite risks and known accidents existing in the world that we live in, the amplification of accident > death due to the simple fact in this case that a dangerous murder gun is the singular reason that death happened.

(snip)

LoL, just imagine their reaction to this story if you simply swap Alec Baldwin with Clint Eastwood or James Woods, lol. Just imagine.
Yea, that says it all.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
Uh, first do you understand involuntary manslaughter means? Second.. to tell you how fucked up this is, can you explain how you can be charged for two counts of involuntary manslaughter when only 1 person was killed? was she killed twice? I am not saying he should or shouldn't be charged, but there is some fuckery going on.. kind of like the fuckery that goes on inside your head.
You are welcome to write to the prosecutors and find out why. It's not as if i was the one charging Alec Baldwin.