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.

  • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    It is somewhat ironic that a vocal antigunner ended up having a larger negligent body count than 99.99999% of US gun owners.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      we all know this guy is full of shit but if anyone was wondering how full:

      US had 549 unintentional deaths by firearm in 2021

      several countries’ annual gun death tolls don’t even exceed America’s accidental gun death toll in a single year, including Australia, Japan, England, Spain, and Switzerland. source (emphasis mine)

      fuck you for capitalizing off this tragedy to spew bile and deceit to make yourself feel good

      • replicat@lemmy.world
        cake
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Edit: Lemmy doesn’t support LaTex

        I just want to objectively point out that OPs math is fairly accurate.

        What Percentage of Americans Own Guns? 40%, or approximately more than 82,000,000 Americans own guns.

        So, approximately 0.0006695% of gun owners experienced a negligent discharge that resulted in death.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          i’m not contesting this fucker’s math i’m contesting that they are full of shit for defending a system of violence <3

          you’re on thin ice as well dude

  • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    This from the start has seemed to me like a prosecutor trying to make a name for themselves by taking down a famous person.

    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?

    If you get to the person who’s been told to “do this action convincingly” and you want them to double check all the safety work you’re doing it wrong. Their job isn’t making sure they’ve been given safe tools, it’s using safe tools to make someone that’s fake but convincing.

    Everyone in the armoring company should be charged with murder … but Alec Baldwin did not put live rounds into a gun. He went into work, did his job, and because other people screwed up someone got shot. Maybe the industry itself needs to change but that shouldn’t be Alec Baldwin’s problem. That’s not justice.

    • dangblingus@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      The cinematographer wasn’t an actor. They weren’t rolling. Why would you aim a (ostensibly prop) gun at somebody during a time when the cameras weren’t rolling and they’re not an actor?

      • RedAggroBest@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        Because they were doing a camera test. The gun was drawn and pointed in the direction of the camera, which had people behind it because there weren’t supposed to be live rounds in the gun.

        I thought this had been settled that it was the fault of the master amorer who was wholly unqualified to be doing the job.

        • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          There is blame from the armorer for sure, but I thought I heard something about real guns being on set to shoot for practice. Don’t take my word on that. If that was the case I do think Alec should take part of the blame, because real weapons have no place on a set. If you want actors to have target practice you take them to a gun range.

            • chaogomu@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              The set was not meant to have any live ammo. It was a “cold” set.

              The live ammo actually came from the prop supply company, co-mingled with dummy rounds.

              The live rounds were re-loads into casings that would normally be dummy rounds, because a previous film used them to train the actors how to react to live fire from their guns.

              The live rounds were then turned over to the prop company at the end of that film, and at some point became co-mingled with dummy rounds and then sent out to the Rust film location.

              The armorer should have checked every dummy round. But didn’t even know how to do so. The re-loads were also slightly different looking than the standard dummy round. (red paint in the logo vs blue for the dummy)

              As a note, when questioned by police, the armorer didn’t even know the name brand of the dummy rounds.

  • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    He hired the cheapest firearms manager, tolerated crew playing with real bullets, and so when he’s handed a loaded gun, it’s a direct result of his own mistakes.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Lowest bidder aside, how is this clearly not the armorer’s fault front and center? It was her responsibility to handle the set props. What Baldwin paid them is irrelevant to what she claimed she could provide and was obligated to provide under contract.

      She is literally the one to (a) claim the firearm was safe, but (b) load it with live ammunition.

      ???

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        He is the producer.

        Hi hired her. He tolerated crew using real bullets on set for playing target practice during down time.

        The boss created unsafe conditions, and killed his employee through negligence.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I find that to be a pretty big leap. When she took the role of armorer she assumed all responsibility on set to ensure the safety of the crew, which was the entire point in Baldwin hiring someone to that position in the first place. Her gross negligence if not outright fraud is a result of her own actions and nobody else.

          At most I’d give 20% responsibility to Baldwin for not examining her background more closely.

          • Dkarma@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 months ago

            I completely agree with you that technically the armorer is at fault traditionally in these types of situations and a jury may in fact find that to be true in the eyes of the law eventually, but I find it interesting that in this case the armorer was a younger attractive female on a rough n tumble set and I can only assume there was pressure on her from the other people there shooting if not Baldwin himself to go shooting. Hell she may not have even known the guns were used but that’s not really an excuse.

            What is a meditating factor is what Baldwin said, told her and ordered her to do. Remember he’s her boss. I’m assuming there’s evidence he told her to do blah. If so imo he deserves more than 20%.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              The way I see it, if your responsibility is the safety of firearms and someone tells you to violate that responsibility, that reflects a lot on you and you’re not cut for the job. If there is a contradiction between what the boss tells you and that which you’re held liable for, you better choose wisely. You’re hired for this role specifically when death is on the line no less.

          • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            Why do you think the grand jury, which certainly has seen more evidence than you, felt differently?

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              The Grand Jury is subject to a narrow perspective of evidence framed solely by the Prosecutors. The bar is pretty low.

              If Grand Juries were fullproof, why even proceed to a trial…?

              And it’s quite possible I’m missing something, sure. I don’t really have a horse in this race either way.

          • Poggervania@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I would still say Baldwin is at fault since he wasn’t doing what he could to ensure safety on the set with real guns and live ammunition. The armorer fucked up 100% for sure, but they shouldn’t be the first and last line for following safety policies and SOPs - anybody in a leadership or managerial role should also be enforcing it.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              I find it highly unlikely that a film producer is going around checking weapon props on the vast, vast majority of Hollywood sets. I would be shocked if that ever happens.

              • Poggervania@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                He doesn’t need to check them, but he can certainly go “hey, make sure we’re following safety protocols!” so others can actually do that work - or at least, Baldwin can cover himself by saying he was trying to follow safety protocol.

                You say it’s the armorer’s fault (which it is), but Baldwin still could’ve done more to ensure safety on his end without checking every weapon prop like you said. Ask yourself: if the people in charge don’t follow policy and procedure, do you think the people below them would?

      • CptEnder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Work in the industry, doc side but this is pretty basic producer stuff. This is 100% on the armorer and the only reason they keep trying to charge Baldwin is the legal grey area of the state they filmed in. Had this happened in a state with more production (Georgia, Louisiana, California) there would be a more direct way for prosecutors to go after the correct person. Georgia and California specifically has legal precedent from deaths on set like this.

        One of the reasons credits are so long is because we hire people to maintain a safe set - think of it like a foreman for safe worksite in construction (which we also hire often). We hire a ton of people for safety from actual police to medics and rescue personnel.

        Hiring an armorer is SPECIFICALLY to avoid situations like this. Because the production company is like “hey you know what? I don’t think me, some producer knows how to use a gun safely, I should hire someone who’s certified to do that.” It’s not some token job, they’re supposed to be trained on how to properly load the powder of the blank rounds, how to mark and flag hot guns and dead props, and pretty fucking much rule #1A is never bring live ammo anywhere near your set.

        Baldwin should not be held criminally liable and any half decent entertainment lawyer will settle that. Now civil liability, that’s certainly more realistic. But even then it should be the production LLC not any 1 person.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          In your experience, have you ever seen the responsibility of set prop safety fall on the producer and not be delegated to someone else? Based on what you write here, I assume not which would confirm my initial belief.

      • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Rule 1 of gun safety, check the gun you’re handed for any ammunition.

        What else needs to be said?

        Everything else is its own issue to be dealt with.

        He was given a firearm, did not do HIS due dilligence by checking the gun. He killed a fucking human being. . End of story

        • ImFresh3x@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          Can’t really expect that any more than you expect that Macaulay Culkin in Home Alone personally made sure the paint buckets he swung at Joe Pesci were actually empty. It’s just not how it works.

          It’s up to the props people, in this case the armorer.

          • n3m37h@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            Youre forgetting the 50 year age difference, I dont expect anyone under the age of 15 to be responsible for setting anything up on a set. It takes 10 seconds to check a gun for blanks vs bullets. Frankly anyone who handles a gun anywhere be it real or have which blanks should know the difference and should check.

            This particular model you could not see any bullets so how hard would it be to open the cover and rotate the cylinder 6 times?

            Blanks are just as dangerous as real bullets just at different ranges.

            Alec has been around guns for how long? And didnt learn basic gun safety?

            Íve had to follow safety rules in every job ive been on. Ive uses just about every tool including both air and propane nail guns and the first rule is dont point it at anything tou dont plan on nailing and that has safety to prevent it from firing if not against an object.

            So why are actors any different? They get paid a fuckload more then me and dont have to follow safety and often make others do dangerous shit stunts and dont get salaries or recognition the actors do.