Wait he was handed live gun, which was supposed to fire blanks and yet it's him getting charged and not the propmaster. what the fuck? what am I missing?
It's never as simple as you think.
Analysis of the events and circumstances, and commentary by a lawyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXmAeMQCvZQ
He says that Baldwin is unlikely charged for firing the gun but more likely for being a producer who failed to ensure that the set is safe.
The thing is that he right now is being charged for firing the gun not for falling as a producer, that's why it seems pretty weird like they are really trying to sack him for some reason.
When you fire a gun, and it hits someone, you can't be that surprised when you are charged with that.
You absolutely can if you have every reason to believe it's not firing a live round, like say, on a film set, where all weapons are supposed to be cleared with armorers/prop masters.
I love me some Legal Eagle, but this video is 2 years old and at the beginning he says they don't have the full facts yet and everything is speculative since they don't know what happened. I'm wondering if there's anything more recent with more info about what actually happened.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=wXmAeMQCvZQ
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
So, there is a part where he's an executive producer and may have ignored warnings regarding safety.
According to a Wikipedia article on the incident it was the armorer that had previous experience with accidental discharges of firearms and I guess it's the mere point of their presence during filming to make sure all guns are handled safely. Their job was to hand a safe gun to the actor, they didn't do it and a person died. I don't fucking see one reason to charge the actor, regardless of whether they happen to be a producer or not, and not charge the person actually responsible for the accident.
He was the armorer’s boss, and the producer, so it was his job to make sure everything was as required. He failed his responsibilities, someone died. It’s pretty simple.
It's maddening the amount of people deflecting responsibility off of him. If a workplace safety incident happened, and the boss has cultivated the lax culture against safety AND is involved with said incident, but he's not responsible? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Tbh, my first reaction was that it wasn’t fair; then I read more details as they were reported and had a moment of clarity. People get comfortable and mess up, it happens. This time, it cost someone their life.
For those worried about Alec, he has plenty of money. His ego and wallet will take a hit, but he’s not going to prison. He may or not be in a mental prison, but he can afford quality therapy, so if he is and chooses to stay there, that’s on him.
Literally no one is worried about him as a driving force bud, if you think thats the concern or topic of discussion you should probably sit it out
Then why are people whinging about poor Alex refusing to take his rightful responsibility, like adults and poor people are expected to do?
I went on exactly the same path as you and I only read about it when I came across the articles casually browsing, I didn't actively seek them out.
There are people that knew more and are still defending him, which is wild.
I hear you. He can still be a decent person who made a serious mistake due to gross negligence. I’m not saying he is or isn’t decent; I like s lot of past things he said, and I hope this was a wake up call for all of us: If we’re coasting too long on good reputation/intention/feelings, we’re going to get hard reminders to actually continue working to be better than we were, yesterday.
Perhaps because Baldwin, as far as we know, did everything correctly? He had the armorer prepare the gun and assistant producer check it. The armorer failed to do it correctly and the assistant producer failed at their part of the job. They are guilty of the accident, because they did not follow the procedure required, not the person who gave them the task
No one is absolving responsibility from the armourer.
But if I'm the boss of a warehouse, never enforce any OSHA safety standards against my staff, and one of them just signed off that they inspected the forklift that day without actually doing so, and I drove the forklift and killed someone because of the forklift's malfunction, I am, as the boss, partly responsible for the incident.
To say otherwise is flying against rules and regulations written in blood, as we can clearly see.
It's not that simple because there were a lot of producers and we don't know what his involvement in her hiring was. A producer can do anything from practically everything to literally nothing.
Lol! He was also the actor handling the weapon! We aren’t privy to grand jury evidence, so we’ll have to wait and see. I found this, for anyone interested. https://apnews.com/article/what-to-know-alec-baldwin-grand-jury-60eaa895deee6e762281d575bc4f75b3
Pity he didn’t insist on everyone being safe. I’m still musing the fact that live ammunition was even where it could possibly have been confused with blanks; I’m wondering if anyone has hired a PI to investigate Ms. Guiterrez and other cast and crew who may have had any grudges or other hm, conditions, that may have led to such an unfortunate accident. Or Baldwin himself. I’m not sure about LE investigating every angle, at all. In 2021, Baldwin had a net worth of ~$61 mn.
I looked and found this article, as well: https://www.distractify.com/p/alec-baldwin-net-worth. I would hope Mr. Baldwin has competent counsel and a competent PI. Nonetheless, he’s been charged, and I do understand the charges. All we can do is send best wishes, and see how it plays out in court. I’m sure any fan mail support that’s not inauthentic expressing solidarity and support would be appropriate and appreciated.
As an aside, seven kids. My heart goes out to his family.
I think it would be fair to charge him with reckless endangerment if he was involved with her hiring and there were clear red flags, but producers have extremely varied roles and I don't know what his personal involvement was.
Clear red flags, you say? https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set
I agree the set was a mess and whoever was in charge of that side should definitely be charged for endangerment. I don't know if the most responsible person was Baldwin though, because there were a lot of producers involved and being labeled a producer doesn't mean you actually do anything. It's possible that he had more involvement, but I don't want to make that assumption based on the title of producer alone.
I do think he should have used his influence to do more to make the set safe, no matter what his responsibilities were, and that he was irresponsible in that regard no matter what, but not doing enough isn't necessarily criminal if he wasn't the directly responsible individual.
I meant red flags before she was hired, but she should have been fired immediately after these things happened, I agree.
Let the legal system do its thing. The prosecutor will still have to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the crime they allege he committed.
From my own standpoint I can understand how a certain amount of responsibility lies on him too. If I were handed something that looks like a gun or a knife, I would probably check to make sure it isn't a real gun myself.
Especially in the US, where tragic accidental gun-related deaths and injuries happen every day.
If you hired a professional armorer to handle guns safely and then have had assistant producer check it and confirm the gun is safe then I imagine you would have assumed it actually is.
The armorer trial was pushed back to Feb 21st of this year.
And even though it's a prop, it should still be handled as if it was loaded at all time, not point it at anyone unless necessary, etc.
It may not entirely be his fault, but he was still careless.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_shooting_incident
The scene involved Baldwin's character removing a gun from its holster and pointing it toward the camera. The trio behind the monitor were two feet (0.6 m) from the muzzle of the firearm and none of them were wearing protective gear such as noise-canceling headphones or safety goggles.
The trio behind the monitor began repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, and Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm. He said, "So, I guess I'm gonna take this out, pull it, and go, 'Bang!'" When he removed it from the holster, the revolver discharged a single time.
Halls was quoted by his attorney Lisa Torraco as saying that Baldwin did not pull the trigger, and that Baldwin's finger was never within the trigger guard during the incident.
This would be David Halls, the assistant director.
Since... about a decade ago? Noise cancellation/reduction has been an available feature in earmuffs marketed to firearms users for a while now.
Then they aren't headphones, they are earmuffs with noise cancellation. The insulation in the earmuffs is doing the real work. Noise cancellation by itself isn't going to protect your ears much at all, if anything.
On a film set I would expect anyone in ear protection like that to use the kind with either external sound amplification (mic on the outside, speaker on the inside, so they are headphones) and/or with wireless audio transmission (bluetooth/etc, speaker on the inside, so still headphones)
e.g. https://www.amazon.com/PROHEAR-Electronic-Protection-Bluetooth-Amplification/dp/B07YSM7N97
Yeah I don’t think anyone reasonable thinks Baldwin purposefully shot that person, it was a tragic accident that was preventable at a lot of levels and while I don’t think he would be culpable were he not producing the film and merely acting in it, the fact is he is because he was
Of course the armorer's job, but safety comes in layers. It's in a way everyone's job to apply basic precautions, especially when you're handling one.
Treat all guns as loaded to minimize the potential for harm.
Ok but you have an expert saying “this gun will fire blanks when you pull the trigger, I loaded them, nobody else can touch the gun except me and you under my supervision. When the camera starts rolling in a bit you’re going to point it at that person and fire the blanks in accordance with the script. After the scene ends you hand the gun back to me because nobody else is allowed to touch it”
That’s how movies involving firearms work. If he was following industry and legal standards then he shouldn’t be held responsible as the actor. Maybe the standards need to be changed. Maybe he needs to be held accountable as the producer who hired the armorer. But there needs to be a mens rea for it to be a crime and it needs to be a criminal negligence that we would hold others accountable for if they engage in it without tragedy.
Ok but you have an expert saying “this gun will fire blanks when you pull the trigger, I loaded them, nobody else can touch the gun except me and you under my supervision. When the camera starts rolling in a bit you’re going to point it at that person and fire the blanks in accordance with the script. After the scene ends you hand the gun back to me because nobody else is allowed to touch it”
And not only that, but also producer (David Halls), whose job was to double check the armorer's preparation of the gun, confirms it is safe. I think people claiming this was in any way Baldwin's fault are taking a piss
I think they’re people who understand basic firearm safety but don’t understand extenuating circumstances or the fact that movies tend to use real firearms shooting specialized ammunition.
And the fact is that if you hang out in weird places you’ll meet people who think they know what they’re doing with a gun and really need to be following the first rule of firearm safety (don’t point it at shit you don’t want to destroy). People like the sort who bring unloaded guns into the bedroom or who point them at friends as a joke. You know, morons (and I say this as someone who does do dangerous shit for fun). But there’s a difference between touching an electric wire because you shut off the circuit yourself and touching one because a master electrician assured you it’s safe.
George Clooney has said that on the sets he's been on, both the prop master and the actor check the gun. If a scene requires someone to shoot towards the camera, a transparent barrier is placed in front of the camera, even when it's blanks being used. You don't rehearse a scene with a gun that's capable of firing, you use a dummy gun for that. A real firearm isn't handed to an actor until just before the camera starts rolling, not while they're just setting things up.
These are sensible precautions to take, they just weren't happening on Alec Baldwin's set. The reasons for these precautions is that the "master armorer" can screw up. People complained about lax gun safety before the incident, the complaints were ignored.
The scene they were filming involved him pointing the gun at the camera. The person who got shot was standing behind the camera.
Alec Baldwin claims he did not pull the trigger, and this was corroborated by the assistant director on set.
Exactly. Safety comes in layers and therefore assistant producer David Halls was supposed to double check the gun after the armorer prepared it. He failed at it, the armorer failed at their job and it's theirs and only theirs fault.
And someone's job is to control that this person does their job properly. Which is the someone's boss who delegated the task.
In other words, an executive who assigns a task to someone is responsible to ensure it is done properly.
And someone's job is to control that this person does their job properly. Which is the someone's boss who delegated the task.
Yep, AD David Halls'.
Public scapegoat.
Edit: Alec Baldwin is a known Democrat and caricatured Donald Trump famously on SNL. This is clearly a hit job on him because of his stance.
Even if that’s true, Alec bears legal responsibility. I’m left of USA “left,” so it’s not like I am wrongfully projecting unwarranted culpability onto Alec. I’ve no problems with anything I recall him saying. I understand the emotions that may be driving Alec’s refuseal to accept legal and moral responsibility. It still doesn’t make him less responsible, legally or ethically.
It's all so ridiculous. Alec has made so many statements damning his own case. Like that he didn't know anyone was hurt until police showed up and told him like 45 minutes after. So what, he does his scene, walks off nine the wiser? Maybe she was killed instantly and didn't scream, but the other guy that was shot and didn't lose consciousness. Surely he had something to say when it happened. Nope, Alec is so innocent, he didn't pull the trigger, didn't know it fired, didn't know anyone was hurt.
The US film industry has been operating for over a hundred years, routinely works with firearms, and yet only 3 people have died in firearms accidents that whole time.
I'm saying this for all the gun safety "experts". I don't care if you're military, law enforcement, or a private gun owner, your embarrassing yourself by lecturing Hollywood on gun safety.
Shitpost about human deaths, deal with the lectures on human deaths in the comments.
Dont like it? Shitpost about puppies. No one lectures puppies.
Killing someone is not a lecture, or else most teachers and parents would be in prison for life.
If they practiced proper firearm safety there wouldn't have been real bullets in a gun that's supposed to be loaded with blanks, no?
If they had practiced actually firearm safety on the movie set, the guns would have been blank guns incapable of firing live ammunition.
In fact they'd should have had no guns capable of firing live ammunition on set.
All they should have had were blank firing guns and disabled firearms (e.g. firing pin removed)
Wasnt it a barrel obstruction that was then shot out when he fired a blank with it? Checking to ensure it's blanks in your magazine/chamber is fine, checking a weapon from a site armorer for barrel obstruction isn't a routine thing to check. I certainly don't check my guns for obstruction except when Im cleaning / taking out of storage / have reason to believe there might be one because of ex: a misfire.
If this was live ammo then so many people fucked up. No site I have ever heard of allows live ammo to be present at all. Most studio lots dont allow live ammo, and several in hollywood require security to use custom marked handguns that prominently say they have live rounds in them. Ive been told a few even have fully custom magwells for site security guards / lot cops so you cant swap the magazines around. The paranoia around gun safety in hollywood is nuts. It's fucking incredible how many people had to fuck up to cause this.
They had live ammo and live shooting non-disabled guns. The crew were using them on the incident day to shoot cans, and this was the armorer's first second film job
I mean, tbf, you do not need live ammo to make a film... The other examples do need -want for the private case- so I do not think is comparable.
I imagine live ammo would have been removed years ago if there were truly no need for it, so there's probably some reason it's good to have.
They use blanks so they don't have to pay a special effects person to edit in gunfire sound effects and muzzle flash
And yet. They clearly failed that day. To have that great a safety record before the failure really begs the question doesn't it?
How he can be tried for the duty of a prop person or the director who hired that person is beyond ludicrous. The man showed up to do a job. That job was not to keep the props safe. He was handed a tool and told it was ok to use. Fuck this system. Let him go about his life. I'm sure the trauma of having shot someone for real is enough to make him double-check for the rest of his life. That's enough.
Umm. No. Sorry gunna pull my union card on this one since this is my Industry and while I am not an armorer or a props person I am emeshed in their understanding of property on a set as an On set dresser.
There is a legal duty of care held by everyone who handles a prop weapon. Furthermore there is a duty of care held by Producers on a show. Baldwin was not just an actor, he was a producer on Rust which means he had hiring and firing power.
Regularly this is how prop weapon safety works.
Prop weapons are only handled by an armorer who must maintain a full supervision of the weapon. It can never be used with live ammunition.
Loading can only ever take place by the props person (non union exception) or a designated armorer who must have an up to date licence.
Any mishandling of the weapon up to this stage leaves the armourer open to criminal liability. If someone steps in to this process at this stage they might take the lions share of liability. If an actor or someone who is not the props person charged with care of the weapon grabs it for instance without a hand off.
During the hand off of the weapon to an actor the props person does a last physical check of all the rounds in the weapon in sight of the actor. IF an actor accepts a weapon without doing this check then they are considered criminally negligent for any harm done with the weapon that would have been reasonably negated by this step. If the actor uses the weapon in a way that is unsafe after this check all liability is shoulded by the actor.
Following the weapon that killed on Rust it was used with live ammunition to shoot cans and abandoned on a cart. This makes the props person negligent by film safety practice. It was picked up by the 1st Assistant Director whom was not entitled to handle the weapon AT ALL which transfers some criminal negligence to him. The 1st AD handed the weapon to Baldwin and claimed it was a safe weapon WITHOUT performing the check. Anyone who saw this trade off on the set should have set off general alarm. But they didn't. This could have had to do with power imbalances on set. You generally do not tell a Producer that they are doing something wrong unless you are either willing to trust the producer to be reasonable or baring that, are willing to lose your job. Wrongful termination suits are nigh nonexistent in film because chasing one might blacklist you from other productions.
The 1st AD is the main safety officer on set and Baldwin as an experienced actor would have been briefed on weapon safety protocols many times before. Having the 1st AD just hand you a weapon on set EVEN one that is an inert rubber replica would be an instant firing offence for the AD. Accepting the weapon without insisting on a check leaves the liability on the actor. They might have a lesser share depending on how experienced they might be. If they were ignorant of the protocol at the time then the production team would take that share liability for not properly enforcing safety on the set.
Baldwin as a producer in the days leading up to the accident had shown signs of being negligent in other areas of production safety and the people hired into positions that were to enforce safety on set. People left the production citing the unsafe conditions in protest. He may not shoulder the full liability of criminal negligence but he ABSOLUTELY owns a chunk of it. Directors and Producers REGULARLY push the boundaries of crew safety when they think they can get away with it and the bigger the name the more likely these accidents are. Remembering WHY we have these safety protocols and the people injured or killed in the past is something that is well known in the industry. We remember those killed or permanently maimed by production negligence because there but for the grace of God go us. Everyone who has been in this industry more than a decade personally knows someone whose life was permanently impacted by a bigshot throwing their weight around because of the natural power imbalances on set. One of my Co-workers sustained a permanently debilitating brain injury last year for just this reason. You dice with some one else's death you gotta pay up when you lose.
I enjoy having my mind changed by well-written, well-reasoned posts from people who are informed. Thank you.
Thank you for having your mind changed!
A lot of people fall into error regarding common sense safety on set...like I have heard people go on about how "brave" Lady Gaga was to throw her weight around to film her video in an actual thunderstorm because the outcome was "worth it" not realizing how many injuries, including potentially fatal injuries could have resulted on the crew. People tend to sympathize and uncritically digest what people they "know" and respect tell them versus the rest of us who are relatively faceless.
The particularly upsetting thing is I know people who have literally ruined people's lives and not only are they still working but overall they don't change. The presumption that someone actually feels bad and applies that later isn't my experience. At some level they find ways to self justify that what they did was reasonable and then they just blindly trust that lightning won't strike twice.
The instinct is to react to something like this as a potential trolling move but... You could be sincere. I can't say my brushes with Producers has given me much faith in their understanding of interdepartmental property management. Kind of makes sense since the general attitude I've noted regarding most potential Producer caused property damages from people at my level is "if they want to ruin the equipment we've rented they are the ones paying for it in the first place."
I don't tend to think of our industry as being very grounded. I have had production designers, directors and decorators ask for things that are quite frankly impossible by the easily observable laws of physics with no idea about how absurd they sound... But it's something of a career limiting move to frame their request as being astronomically dumb when suggesting the potential complications. The "Emporer has no Clothes" effect is alive in film. But when you look at things from an outside legal perspective you have employers and employees and the chain of responsibilities to maintain a safe work environment. Most of the time the actual nuts and bolts work is the domain of the PM to mitigate potential damage to the overall investment.
I think union film work is in part generally pretty well inoculated against the majority of criminal negligence cases by the culture of highly regimented structure... And endemic jadedness at the bottom. A newbie will light themselves on fire to keep production warm but that isn't good for production or the newbie so it's unofficial job of the seniors in lateral positions and the boss directly above to make sure that doesn't happen.
Most of the time it seems like the creative captains and financiers of the ship keep their eye firmly on what they want to creativity achieve and rhen the bosses below look at their first job as being to impress. We play very risky political game with our own supervisors if we call foul. Put a call into an IATSE steward about a safety concern that makes a boss look bad and they will give you the straight rule as best they can apply it to your complaint but they also give you a caution that just because the rules are there to protect your safety doesn't mean that you as a laborer won't have your career harmed for standing your ground.
We're all just day calls. We don't have to be fired. Our bosses just don't have to hire us back for the next show and the people at the top never need to know.
Nope, all actors need to know is "Don't take a gun from anyone but a props person and make sure they open the chamber, remove and check each round in the chamber while you watch."
It's like one or two more steps complicated than telling a young child "don't take medicine from anyone but a parent".
That's not how liability works. It's not a hot potato that stops with the first person in a chain of people who did wrong. Everyone who contributes to a catastrophe of broken rules essentially gets a slice of the consequence pie the only thing that changes is how big a slice of the overall pie you get.
Here's what the situation says to me. You have a 1st AD and a Principle and senior Actor/ Producer who were breaking the most basic of rules. For context on a film set say a camera person sets a case of lenses on something I as a set dresser need to move. It is largely unacceptable for me to even touch that box until I have tried everything viable to hail the correct department to move it. If somebody tries to hand me something I am not supposed to be handed I go talk to their supervisor. Some things even if I have explicit permission to handle from a props person, like a gun, I am liable if I handle it anyway because there is no circumstances where me putting my hand on that item is acceptable. First rule on a set you learn day one "Don't touch ANYTHING that belongs to someone outside your department".
If this incredibly basic rule was SO flagrantly violated on so many levels by THE CHEIF SAFETY OFFICER ON SET that tells me that the safety problems and the culture of improper protocol were endemic on the set. This very obviously wasn't one bad day of lax protocols. This was an unsafe set and an everyday unsafe crew culture. Lots of times you don't get burned when something isn't safe so people try their luck which is all fine and dandy until tragedy hits.
This AD had a previous incident where a gun he handled fired a live round went off on a set and just didn't hit anybody. At that point people should have fucking hung drawn and quarted him and busted him back down to Trainee. He was a demonstratilably consistent danger to the crews he was on but Rust STILL HIRED him as their primary safety officer anyway.
When something goes this desperately wrong that pie gets so big there's a slice for everyone. The other Producers on this show had a duty to hire people who do the job properly. The 1st AD is a major hire. Ist ADs arguably do more to protect production liability than a Director does and production has their eye on the pick. If something a director wants is unsafe it is a 1st AD who has veto power. They set the culture of the set to make provisions for safety. If you rent a peice of equipment that has a record of dangerously failure and one of your workers gets hurt by it you as an employer get burned. The same goes for personnel. The producers absolutely should find some liability pie on their plates too. Are they gunna get prison time? Probably not but they are still negligent and there are consequences that scale to fit.
Baldwin could very well be the armorer's direct supervisor and father and it still would be her and the ADs fuck-up the gun shot a live round.
She was hired for the sole purpose of making sure all guns on set are handled safely and she simply failed: the shooting is her fault and I'm sure despite all of us getting riled up in the comments this in fact will be the final verdict
It's true it's ultimately a matter for the courts to figure out. But I will tell you that I know what sets like these are like. I worked a lot of them back when I was new and I know rhe type. The assumption of remorse is bullshit. There are plenty of big shots who coerce people into getting debilitatingly hurt in my industry and after they feign a period of remorse it is right back to business as usual.
Baldwin deserves his lumps. He had to have been a greenhorn on his first day on set and a fucking king of idiots besides to not know better. If public opinion won't hold him to account because they buy his bullshit victim card act I hope he sees consequences in court.
I couldn't give less shits about him in particular, because being non-american I have never heard of him before I saw this particular meme on Lemmy.
I just wish to believe at least in the justice system in the US. I'm still skeptical about the Rittenhouse verdict but if the fucking armourer isn't found guilty and Baldwin is instead, then this just confirms your system is broken.
No lol, this is the same thing as saying "the gun seller is responsible for the school shooting"
No it's not, stop playing dumb. A gun seller's job is to sell guns. Even if a potential school shooter buys one, the gun seller has done their job. Who failed perhaps is the person who issued a gun license to a potential school shooter, but then you can make a case of whether potential school shooters can be detected before the act.
An armorer's job is to make sure guns on set are handled safely. A revolver which was under her supervision has not been handled safely, and as far as we know it was her and precisely her mistake that left the live bullet inside the barrel, therefore she failed at her job and is culpable for the death. This in no way compares to a gun seller.
Baldwin didn't "show up to do a job." He was a producer on the film, not just an actor.
Producer is a broad term, there are many producers for a movie. He was likely just overseeing casting and other actor stuff.
No it doesn't. If I cut the brakes in your car and it causes you to run into someone, then it's my fault, not yours.
Edit: you know who else could be found viable? The service person who checked the vehicle before you took it on the road and allowed it through despite nonfunctional breaks.
A gun's purpose is to kill people, a car's is not. The analogy is flawed.
Still, assuming you have mandatory regular inspections of cars in the US, imagine you are an experienced mechanic by profession. Someone lends you a car and says it's safe but you know immediately this rustbucket hasn't been to an inspection in decades. By experience and papers. But you drive in a public space anyways and kill someone due to a fault that would have been found during an inspection. It is 100% your fault.
As I understand it, following safety procedures would have prevented this death, in the same way nonfunctional brakes would certainly be found during service.
On a side note, as an electrician who has to sign documents that electrical devices are safe to use, if one of those devices kills someone and I can prove that I followed protocol during testing, I am in the clear. Following rules makes the difference between a tragic accident and negligence.
A gun’s purpose is to kill people
Spoken like a true psychopath.
A gun's purpose is to provide safety and utility to the bearer. "Killing people" that are attempting to harm you is called self-defense and is totally legal.
"The trio behind the monitor began repositioning the camera to remove a shadow, and Baldwin began explaining to the crew how he planned to draw the firearm. He said, "So, I guess I'm gonna take this out, pull it, and go, 'Bang!'" When he removed it from the holster, the revolver discharged a single time. Baldwin denied pulling the trigger of the gun, while ABC News described a later FBI report stating that the gun could only fire if the trigger was pulled. Halls was quoted by his attorney Lisa Torraco as saying that Baldwin did not pull the trigger, and that Baldwin's finger was never within the trigger guard during the incident. When the gun fired, the projectile traveled towards the three behind the monitor. It struck Hutchins in the chest, traveled through her body, and then hit Souza in the shoulder. Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell called 9-1-1 at 1:46 p.m. PT and emergency crews appeared three minutes later. Footage of the incident was not recorded."
"In August 2022, FBI forensic testing and investigation of the firearm determined the Pietta .45 Long Colt Single Action Army revolver could not have been fired without a trigger pull from a quarter cocked, half-cocked, or fully cocked hammer position. It was also determined that the internal components of the revolver were intact and functional which ruled out mechanical failure as a reason for an accidental discharge. Baldwin stated during a December 2021 interview for ABC News that "the trigger wasn't pulled" and "I didn't pull the trigger."
So he most likely lied about it. Maybe he was drunk or on drugs..
"On January 19, 2023, New Mexico First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies said she would charge Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed with two counts each of involuntary manslaughter. Halls agreed to plead guilty to negligent use of a deadly weapon, and received a suspended sentence and six months of probation."
"On June 22, 2023, Gutierrez-Reed faced a second charge of tampering with evidence, in which the special prosecutors allege that she transferred "narcotics to another person with the intent to prevent the apprehension, prosecution or conviction of herself.” They later specify from a June 29 court filing that she attempted to conceal a small bag of cocaine the night of the fatal shooting after her initial police interview. On August 4, 2023, Gutierrez-Reed waived her right to a preliminary hearing to determine whether or not the criminal charges would stand, thus allowing the trial to move forward and on August 9, she pleaded not guilty to both charges. On August 21, a New Mexico judge scheduled her trial to run February 21 through March 6, 2024."
There were drugs on set.
"On November 10, Rust gaffer Serge Svetnoy filed a lawsuit against the production for general negligence. A second lawsuit was filed on November 17 by script supervisor Mamie Mitchell, who says the script did not call for the discharging of a firearm. On January 23, 2022, Baldwin and other producers filed a memorandum that asked a California judge to dismiss the November 17, 2021 lawsuit by Mitchell. In November 2022, the court rejected a request to dismiss Mitchell's lawsuit against Baldwin and his production company"
I didn't know it is his own company as well..
If there's evidence, then let a jury decide. Having this take so long isn't justice to anyone
