Halyna Hutchins' Death by a Prop Gun

[hearthesilence]

Reed's lawyer will try to make a case that she was overworked, and the production company made it impossible to her job as the armorer.

I am not a lawyer, of course, and I’m not really even trying to make a legal argument here … just thinking aloud that this seems like a terrible defense in that it’s essentially an admission of guilt.

“The charge is that you were negligent.”

“We’ll you have to understand, I was overworked, so naturally I was neglected the safety standards that were part of my job.”

As an attempt to plea deal to get a lighter sentence, I guess I can see it. She might even deserve consideration based on that.

But as a defense in hopes of acquittal? Yikes, not sure they’d want me on a jury, if that’s the argument they want to make. It seems roughly akin to saying that, of course I fell asleep at the wheel and killed those folks, I’ve been super stressed and sleeping badly the last week.

But, highly possible that there are intricacies in the law that I’m not factoring in here, I guess.

Pretty much. The NY Times posted this, but in her video interview with the police, she tells them (rather unconvincingly) that she did every thing you were supposed to do when checking for live rounds. She clearly didn't or did it inadequately based on forensic evidence - changing her story and saying she was overworked may help get her a lighter sentence but only if it's understood as an admission of guilt. (If she pleads not guilty, it may not help much if at all.) At this point it's hard to see how she won't take on most of the guilt for gross negligence.

[Lemmy Caution]

Well, you can mount as many defenses as you want. You dont have to stick to just one defense. Arguing in the alternative. Even when these alternative defenses are contradictory.

So the main defense is likely to be that she fulfilled all her duties. Seems so far they are alleging some mysterious person Intentionally Sabotaged the gun. Probably try to cast suspicion on the crew members who walked out on the production only a few hours before the fatal incident. There were apparently two earlier gun incidents/misfires on set, and I presume they'll attribute that to a pattern of so-called sabotage.

Another available defense is that there was No Negligence, that this was just a tragic unforeseeable accident (or intentional sabotage). That Reed performed her duties with reasonable care.

And if any negligence occurred, it was the Negligence of the Production Company. That they overworked and overextended Reed, putting her (or any similarly situated, reasonably careful professional) in a difficult position. And that the 2 earlier minor incidents and the safety-inspired walkouts were red flags that the production company should have heeded by ceasing production until safety issues were solved.

Reed's lawyers can both argue that the dual role was not unusual or inherently negligent, but once problems cropped up, it was production company negligence to continue the dual role (designed to save money at the expense of safety).

They can also argue whoever handed the gun over should have checked, the actor should have checked, the gun still shouldnt have been pointed directly at anyone, etc. Though I'd rather have Baldwin on my side -- that the production was safe and non-negligent -- rather than shifting negligence on to him.

The crew walk out due to safety reasons is problematic for any defense. As are the two other prior incidents. Which is probably why they are considering introducing an intentional sabotage scenario. Easier to prove negligence if you knew or should have known about prior safety issues.

[Lemmy Caution]

Just some quick thoughts. I'm not a criminal lawyer. (or am I?)
Also not fully informed on all the details. Just some speculation.

Reed did her job reasonably and there was no negligence.
Any negligence was due to the production company (or others who handled the gun).
Or there was intentional sabotage.
No blame, or shift the blame. Or allege criminal mischief.

[zedz]

I think the "intentional sabotage" argument is a no-hoper unless there's a smoking gun (oops). I mean, like actual footage of an actual person actually tampering with the gun, or else actual footage of Reed properly checking the gun just before the incident. Without any evidence, it's simply "I'm innocent, so there must be a conspiracy," and if that worked it would be the standard plea in any criminal case!

And it's going to be very hard for Reed to provide evidence that she did her job properly and without negligence when the evidence against that is that there was a live bullet in the gun - unless, as above, her doing that job was somehow magically captured on film.

Baldwin is at the end of a chain of custody (e.g. armourer, AD) that on a properly functioning set is supposed to ensure accidents like this don't happen. In this case it also looks like a chain of negligence. With each link of the chain, the personal responsibility presumably diminishes, but whether that means Baldwin has no residual culpability remains a legal issue to be resolved, especially in the context of a corner-cutting production where there had already been safety issues. (Do we know exactly what they were - like, was there a previous incident with a live gun ending up on the set?)

[Peacock]

I haven’t read all the recent replies yet; I apologise, and there may be some recent information which has come out that I haven’t seen yet but after the accident I spoke to a group of senior armourers in the biz about the situation and their feeling was that there are multiple people are fault here:

- the producers for causing an armourer to have divided attention by having them working in the art department as well

- the 1st AD for picking up a gun that he wasn’t handed directly by an armourer, and also for claiming the gun isn’t loaded when he passed it to Baldwin, and also for handing a weapon to a cast member when he isn’t the armourer

- the armourer for not being present when a gun was being used on set, and for not checking enough that there was no live ammunition in the weapons, and for potentially allowing random external guns to be brought in and used in the film rather than ones owned and controlled 100% by production.

- Baldwin for not checking himself that the gun wasn’t loaded/ breaking safe handling of weapon rules. Actors should only take a weapon from an armourer, and they should be shown that the weapon isn’t loaded at that moment and they themselves have the responsibility to check the chamber is empty before pointing it at someone. And they shouldn’t point at a weapon at someone without knowing the armourer is present and approves that action. Baldwin isn’t new and he knows how gun safety on film sets works.


On productions I work on whenever we use guns that are ‘flash in the pan’ only - everyone still walks on egg shells around the weapons and only the armourer and actor due to handle the weapon are allowed to touch it. If a weapon is due to be pointed at a cast or crew member the armourer does an announcement to the crew to explain the weapon has been triple checked by themselves and the actor and has no bullets or blanks inside.

Rust is an example of a production where lots of corners were cut and when you cut corners accidents eventually happen.


From a legal perspective for Baldwin, think of it like this: if I hand you a gun, tell you it’s not loaded and give you money to point it at someone, you do and then the gun goes off and kills them then you will be guilty of manslaughter/culpable homicide. Because you were reckless and negligent in not checking for yourself that the gun isn’t loaded. I would also be in trouble but ultimately you were the one who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. The fact this took place on a film set and multiple people were responsible for the negligence is going to be a mitigating factor in any sentence but Baldwin committed a crime here and is the one that pointed the gun.

[Murdoch]

I do criminal defense, albeit in NY.

The New Mexico statute requires the prosecutor prove that, "in the commission of a lawful act [which] might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection," the accused killed another person.

I've read more about Baldwin's case than Reed. The DA at one point asserted that Baldwin, due to his handling guns in past movies, should have known the gun in the present case was loaded, which is pretty ridiculous. They're going to have a very hard time convincing a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin was somehow acting without "due caution" when the gun was fired given there were a whole team of people involved to assure him it was not loaded

Was he aiming the gun toward the deceased because he was rehearsing a scene? I didn't get what actually went down. I thought he aimed toward the camera following directions and the gun went off.

Edit: Just reviewed past posts and see Baldwin was rehearsing drawing the gun in front of the camera when it went off

[Lemmy Caution]

Unlawfully or without due care seems to be simply another way of stating negligence, particularly the latter part. Reed charged with 2 counts of involuntary manslaughter, one based on negligence, the other reckless endangerment.

My understanding is that twice during production rifles with blanks accidentally discharged. Raising safety issues. The partial crew walkout is pretty damning and shows that Reed, Baldwin and the other producers knew or should have known there were safety issues. Negligence usually requires that one knew or should have known of the danger and didn't take reasonable steps to prevent an injury/accident/dangerous incident (reasonable person standard). New Mexico OSHA fined the Rust production and documented many safety failings, though of course after Hutchin's death. But their report is pretty damning as well.

Reed's best defense is that Hall, who handed the loaded gun to Baldwin while saying it wasn't loaded, was assistant director and safety coordinator. Reed wasn't present at the time and therefore wasn't able to perform her duty, which Hall essentially took on. And that the production skimped on safety and ignored safety concerns. You can certainly understand why Hall took a plea. Very hard to argue he wasn't negligent and culpable. Reed needs to shift blame on to Hall and the production company.

Baldwin claims he didn't pull the trigger; apparently their theory is that he accidentally knocked the hammer back which then released and fired the bullet. He was practicing a cross-draw which could be somewhat clumsy/tricky especially while seated in a pew. Also that he didn't aim at the camera or directors, but only "in their direction" as per their instructions. And that he had no reason to believe there was live ammo anywhere on set. All of which sounds like his lawyers (and/or conscience) trying to minimize his role. Otherwise, his main defense is that he was relying on professionals to maintain safety. Though as an experienced actor, he likely knew an actor's responsibility for gun handing/safety on set. Personally, a 24 year old armorer wouldn't make me feel safe.

One big unresolved issue is how live ammunition got on set. Who knew about it. And who put the live (or any ammunition) in that particular antique six-shooter. If Reed and friends brought live bullets on set or knew they were present, that likely would be prima facie evidence of negligent culpability (lemmy says in confident legalese).

[Murdoch]

I agree it appears to be negligence as the mens rea. I think the issue Baldwin will run into will be all the statements he provided investigators. If there's any admissions to knowledge about procedures in place for handling of firearms and the issues surrounding their handling on the set, then that will just strengthen the DA's case. The number one rule of criminal defense is never talk to the cops

[Lemmy Caution]

I spoke to a group of senior armourers in the biz about the situation and their feeling was that there are multiple people are fault here:

- the armourer for not being present when a gun was being used on set, and for not checking enough that there was no live ammunition in the weapons, and for potentially allowing random external guns to be brought in and used in the film rather than ones owned and controlled 100% by production.

Yes, Reed the armorer should have been present. But why wasn't she there? Was her absence negligence on her part in any way? Did she know about the rehearsal with a gun involved? Was she assigned other duties at that time, etc?

From a legal perspective for Baldwin, think of it like this: if I hand you a gun, tell you it’s not loaded and give you money to point it at someone, you do and then the gun goes off and kills them then you will be guilty of manslaughter/culpable homicide. Because you were reckless and negligent in not checking for yourself that the gun isn’t loaded. I would also be in trouble but ultimately you were the one who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. The fact this took place on a film set and multiple people were responsible for the negligence is going to be a mitigating factor in any sentence but Baldwin committed a crime here and is the one that pointed the gun.

I think this is a rather poor analogy and off-base. It's more like, as part of a safety demonstration, a police officer hands you a gun, tells you it's unloaded and asks you need to point it at him/someone. Not a perfect analogue but incorporates a trained professional handing over a gun and declaring that it is safe, with an understandable reason for aiming at a person, in a controlled setting. These are key components of the Rust incident.

[Michael Kerpan]

I just can't get over the fact that there was live ammunition on the set (much less in the gun). Surely someone should have a clue how this could have happened.

What if Baldwin had said, "this is loaded", and was told "of course, it has blanks"? Would he have been culpable? Is an actor supposed to be able to know the difference? If he knew he would be shooting off blanks in advance, would he even have to comment? Why would he think it was NOT a blank? (Or was the gun not supposed to have anything loaded? Which would make a lot of difference).

[Roger Ryan]

I just can't get over the fact that there was live ammunition on the set (much less in the gun)... Why would he think it was NOT a blank? (Or was the gun not supposed to have anything loaded? Which would make a lot of difference).

As I understand it, this was a rehearsal being done to set up a camera angle and there should not have been blanks or anything else in the chamber of the gun. Any blanks should/would have been loaded just prior to any actual filming. Since live ammunition should never be used on set, when Baldwin was told it was a "cold gun", it was to indicate that no blanks were loaded.

[ntnon]

Baldwin claims he didn't pull the trigger; apparently their theory is that he accidentally knocked the hammer back which then released and fired the bullet. He was practicing a cross-draw which could be somewhat clumsy/tricky especially while seated in a pew. Also that he didn't aim at the camera or directors, but only "in their direction" as per their instructions. And that he had no reason to believe there was live ammo anywhere on set. All of which sounds like his lawyers (and/or conscience) trying to minimize his role.

"All of which sounds accurate (or plausible)," is surely fairer..

You must be able to trust that props handed to you are what they are said to be, surely? And for all the 'he's been on sets before and knows how it works,' points - isn't Specific Knowledge Assumption #1 that there won't be live ammunition on set?

[ntnon]

From a legal perspective for Baldwin, think of it like this: if I hand you a gun, tell you it’s not loaded and give you money to point it at someone, you do and then the gun goes off and kills them then you will be guilty of manslaughter/culpable homicide. Because you were reckless and negligent in not checking for yourself that the gun isn’t loaded. I would also be in trouble but ultimately you were the one who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. The fact this took place on a film set and multiple people were responsible for the negligence is going to be a mitigating factor in any sentence but Baldwin committed a crime here and is the one that pointed the gun.

What about this as a potentially-comparable set/stunt analogy:

A qualified individual tells an actor to push another actor off a ten storey building, reassuring both that there are harnesses involved and [boxes/mats/soft materials] below..

How much of a responsibility does the individual doing the pushing have to check behind the individual attaching harnesses?

[Peacock]

What about this as a potentially-comparable set/stunt analogy:

A qualified individual tells an actor to push another actor off a ten storey building, reassuring both that there are harnesses involved and [boxes/mats/soft materials] below..

How much of a responsibility does the individual doing the pushing have to check behind the individual attaching harnesses?

That’s a great one. I think in that situation the stunt team would be responsible as they said it was ok and were in charge of the harnessing.

In this case the person who is in charge of weapons not being loaded was not present at the time and the actor didn’t question this when handed the gun by a third party.

So it would be more like in your example if two actors went to the top of a building without stunts present and the director then told them it was safe to push each other over the top as he had rigged the correct harness. If the actor just shrugged and pushed the other actor to his death then you could argue the actor was negligent as they knew only stunts are allowed to attach their harnesses and give the go ahead to do a high risk move.

Michael was asking why live rounds were on set. There was talk of people doing target practice with the weapons off set - which is totally against gun safety rules on set - but the armourers I spoke to thought it was equally or more likely that the guns came from a variety of different private owners and therefore a bullet could have been left in a barrel from private use before.

On some sets extras ask if they can bring their own weapons if they fit the brief of the film. Armourers hate that as it can quickly lead to an uncontrolled environment where guns come with their owners to set and go home on a daily basis and risk live ammunition getting left in a weapon.

In this case where you have multiple antique weapons you can imagine there could be several private owners renting the guns for the shoot rather than production spending significant money to create replica non-firing guns. For my money the bullet ended up on set that way. Especially if weapons are coming and going throughout the production (which I don’t know).

Bottom line though - Baldwin had a duty to check the weapon was empty before pointing it at somebody, and he knew he should only have taken it from the armourer. That’s their job. The first AD was very lucky getting the plea offer that he did… he knows he was in the wrong for handing a potentially deadly weapon to a cast member when it wasn’t his role.

Yes the 1st AD was the safety officer… but that’s normal on many sets, and it doesn’t mean they are allowed to handle a weapon.

When our armourer isn’t present at the moment and we need to quickly line up a shot with a weapon pointed at camera then the actor’s use a finger gun. There would be major consequences if someone broke that rule. If the first AD ever handed someone a gun they would be fired that day I can promise you!


Sorry for the long reply but last thing, personally for me the order of culpability is Baldwin followed by the 1st AD followed further behind Reed. Producers last.

Baldwin should have totally refused to take the gun from the 1st. The 1st should have called for the armourer and not handled the gun. Reed should have had a more secure system in place for storing all weapons and checking them regularly for blanks or live rounds. The producers ultimately can’t force people to break the rules, even if they created the toxic work environment in the first place.

[Lemmy Caution]

Mostly it comes down to the specific details at play, the so-called fact pattern in the case.
Along with what the industry standards are for an actor and armorer in order to determine if they acted reasonably or negligently. And lastly, the specific NM criminal statutes, their wording and how that's been interpreted in NM case law.

A few questions stand out.
What is an actor's responsibility to check a gun they will handle?
And here standard practice might deviate from industry guidelines/best practices.

Why was Reed the Armorer absent from that rehearsal?
From a USA Today article:

[New Mexico OSHA] Investigators found production managers placed tight limits on resources for a small team that controlled weapons on set and failed to address concerns about a shotgun left unattended twice.

Armorer Gutierrez Reed, the daughter of a sharpshooter and consultant to film productions, was limited to eight paid days as an armorer to oversee weapons and training, and was assigned otherwise to lighter duties as a props assistant. As her time as an armorer ran out, Gutierrez Reed warned a manager and was rebuffed.

Was Reed intentionally kept away so that that rehearsal didn't count towards her paid armorer stint? Had she completed her 8 day contract and technically wasn't even armorer of record then? Did she know of the rehearsal and that a gun would be involved.

Why was live ammunition present and who introduced it?
This may never be satisfactorily answered. Early speculation was that Reed and friends/possibly other crew did target practice and other shooting off set during their off-work hours.

While other facts and on-set incidents can weigh in favor of proper safety or negligence.
There's possibly two misfire with blanks that may have occurred and/or a rifle twice left unattended. And reportedly a photo of Reed and friends at the set casually and unsafely handling guns. The specific details and their context are key to determine reasonableness or negligence. More details will come out.

[Toland's Mitchell]

Reed's lawyer will try to make a case that she was overworked, and the production company made it impossible to her job as the armorer.

I am not a lawyer, of course, and I’m not really even trying to make a legal argument here … just thinking aloud that this seems like a terrible defense in that it’s essentially an admission of guilt.

I mean, Reed was on set at the time of the shooting, unlike the armorer on The Crow. So it's obvious she bears some negligence, thus what defense does she have other than trying to deflect the bulk of the blame onto others? I'm speculating that her lawyer will make a case that the production was being too hard on her, making her armorer responsibilities impossible. This article contains screenshots of emails exchanged between her and the producers:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/20 ... set-deadly

Of course, as others have mentioned. Reed's defense could go the other direction down the chain, arguing Halls and/or Baldwin are more at fault. In any case, if there is sufficient defense brought up in trial, it could get her off involuntary manslaughter charges. But I think at the very least, she will get negligent use of deadly weapon charges, as 1AD Halls pleaded guilty to.

You must be able to trust that props handed to you are what they are said to be, surely? And for all the 'he's been on sets before and knows how it works,' points - isn't Specific Knowledge Assumption #1 that there won't be live ammunition on set?

Bottom line though - Baldwin had a duty to check the weapon was empty before pointing it at somebody, and he knew he should only have taken it from the armourer. That’s their job. The first AD was very lucky getting the plea offer that he did… he knows he was in the wrong for handing a potentially deadly weapon to a cast member when it wasn’t his role.

Yes the 1st AD was the safety officer… but that’s normal on many sets, and it doesn’t mean they are allowed to handle a weapon.

When our armourer isn’t present at the moment and we need to quickly line up a shot with a weapon pointed at camera then the actor’s use a finger gun. There would be major consequences if someone broke that rule. If the first AD ever handed someone a gun they would be fired that day I can promise you!

Baldwin should have totally refused to take the gun from the 1st. The 1st should have called for the armourer and not handled the gun. Reed should have had a more secure system in place for storing all weapons and checking them regularly for blanks or live rounds. The producers ultimately can’t force people to break the rules, even if they created the toxic work environment in the first place.

True, Baldwin had no reason to suspect live ammo. However, blanks on set are much more common, and blanks can do damage too. Therefore, every gun on set, even if it's a toy, is treated as though it were real and loaded. Guns on set is a very strict deal, as Peacock and I have gone over, with a long list of procedures to be followed. Baldwin knew them. He should not have accepted the gun from Halls. I disagree with Peacock that Baldwin is the most culpable, but I'm certainly not in the 'Baldwin is completely innocent' camp.

Reed should have been present at the time. I've heard mixed reports on why she wasn't, but the main one I've heard is that she was busy with the art department at the time. Supposedly there was on a cart on set with guns she personally checked and declared safe. But that was no reason for her not be present, nor for Halls to be grabbing one. You always need to check them again, because you just never know. Others have mentioned sabotage, extras bringing their own weapons, the fact some crewmembers were off target-practicing in the desert with the same guns used in the film. Any one of these could have led to a mix-up between a 'hot weapon' and a 'cold weapon' on that cart. And that's why they needed to be checked again. Personally I think a gun they were using in target practice got mixed up in the bunch. That seems like the most plausible explanation, but I suppose anything's possible. I guess another factor to consider is whether Reed was aware of the rehearsal taking place. Let's say she was busy with the art department at the time. Did somebody from production alert her the rehearsal was about to start? If not, that would make her look somewhat more innocent. However, if somebody did alert her, she didn't do her duty to report to the scene immediately (although if she was really doing her duty, she would have never left that cart of guns in the first place).

[ntnon]

What about this as a potentially-comparable set/stunt analogy:

A qualified individual tells an actor to push another actor off a ten storey building, reassuring both that there are harnesses involved and [boxes/mats/soft materials] below..

How much of a responsibility does the individual doing the pushing have to check behind the individual attaching harnesses?

That’s a great one. I think in that situation the stunt team would be responsible as they said it was ok and were in charge of the harnessing.

In this case the person who is in charge of weapons not being loaded was not present at the time and the actor didn’t question this when handed the gun by a third party.

So it would be more like in your example if two actors went to the top of a building without stunts present and the director then told them it was safe to push each other over the top as he had rigged the correct harness. If the actor just shrugged and pushed the other actor to his death then you could argue the actor was negligent as they knew only stunts are allowed to attach their harnesses and give the go ahead to do a high risk move.

I can see that addition being more apt, but I do think you - and by "you," I mean 'many people' - are editorialising when analogising or describing [Baldwin]'s apparent flippancy.

It is reasonable to assume that one has not been handed a loaded gun ANYWAY, within the context of a film set. But when additionally specifically informed as such.. you are correct that it was the 'wrong' individual communicating the information, but I do not understand why that shifts so much of the burden onto the actor (in many readings).

Especially after the numerous statements that followed initial reports noting that it was Not The Actor's Job to second-guess or check the weapon. Is that information also challenged..?

last thing, personally for me the order of culpability is Baldwin followed by the 1st AD followed further behind Reed. Producers last.

Baldwin should have totally refused to take the gun from the 1st. The 1st should have called for the armourer and not handled the gun...

Even with that justifying second paragraph, surely the logic on display puts 1st (handling it AND not calling for the armourer) above Baldwin? And, arguably - depending somewhat on circumstances, MAYBE - the armourer('s lack of presence) putting her before either?

The Actor's job is - on one, sarcastic, level - to Do As Told. That should include some degree of questioning instructions, and certainly some self-awareness over whom to take instructions from. But I still can't quite grasp why he is taking so much of the blame..

[ntnon]

However, blanks on set are much more common, and blanks can do damage too... He should not have accepted the gun from Halls.

You always need to check them again, because you just never know... they needed to be checked again.

(1) Blanks can be dangerous, but do they cause injury at a distance? i.e. If the events had played out as they did, but with a blank in the gun: does anyone die?

(2) Doesn't Halls' role qualify him to stand in for the armourer? And if not, doesn't that place more of a burden of blame on him and whoever decreed the armourer not be present? (And then thirdly on Baldwin for not derailing the scene and being called diva.)

(3) But not BALDWIN checking them again. That was the initial takeaway - the actor does not check the gun, a 'qualified individual' does. i.e. Armourer. And, plausibly, the safety officer - is it without the bounds of plausibility to suggest a reasonable assumption that Halls (was presumed to have) checked the weapon himself..? And just did so poorly?

[Lemmy Caution]

As I said earlier, the specific facts will be key in determining charges brought and liability at trail. Some more alleged facts have come out with the formal bringing of charges:

Investigators say Baldwin failed to appear for mandatory firearms training prior to filming, and that he didn’t fully complete on-set training while distracted by phone calls to family. They also cite several breaches of required safety-checks and protocols as the gun was loaded and provided to Baldwin.

This goes to a pattern of negligence/carelessness. Somewhat countered by the prosecutions assertions that Baldwin was an experienced vet actor familiar with gun safety on sets. Which itself is intended to counter Baldwin's assertion that he followed professional advice and therefore should be absolved. Prosecutors also allege Baldwin knew that the production had hired a young inexperienced armorer, so should have been more vigilant.

&

Prosecutors also provided a new accounting of live ammunition on the set — noting that five additional live rounds were discovered by authorities, including a round in Baldwin’s holster as well as an ammunition box, a holster, a weapons cart and one live round seized from Gutierrez-Reed.

Jeez, that's pretty sloppy and dangerous. Certainly bad for Reed. Harder to assert there was sabotage in this specific instance.

Prosecutors asserting there was a pattern of negligence and deviation from standard practices.

[ntnon]

As I said earlier, the specific facts will be key in determining charges brought and liability at trail.

Definitely.

It just seems very odd that there's so much focus on Baldwin, often to the exception of those who should have checked the gun.

Some more alleged facts have come out with the formal bringing of charges:

Investigators say Baldwin failed to appear for mandatory firearms training prior to filming, and that he didn’t fully complete on-set training while distracted by phone calls to family. They also cite several breaches of required safety-checks and protocols as the gun was loaded and provided to Baldwin.

This goes to a pattern of negligence/carelessness. Somewhat countered by the prosecutions assertions that Baldwin was an experienced vet actor familiar with gun safety on sets. Which itself is intended to counter Baldwin's assertion that he followed professional advice and therefore should be absolved. Prosecutors also allege Baldwin knew that the production had hired a young inexperienced armorer, so should have been more vigilant.

But all of this still sounds like it should be SECONDARY - there should never have been a bullet and he should never have been handed a live weapon.

Any discussion of his distractedness is beside-the-point - if he had been distractedly mishandling an unloaded gun under the same circumstances, nobody would have died...

As for suggestions about not being trained, doesn't that compare to airline passengers not paying attention to the safety card? As an actor familiar with protocols - there's no suggestion there were NEW rules, is there? - he knew all this. Viz. There would not be a live gun present, it would not be described as cold and he would not be handed it. Everything else is prevarication and misdirection, surely?

MAYBE he should have complained that there was an inexperienced armourer - maybe everyone should. (And maybe they did.) But this is post-facto - if everything had been safe, that would be irrelevant.

What duty does anybody have to refuse to do their job if, IN THEIR OPINION a third party might not be good enough at their task? Map that to any industry (and include that an allegedly-knowledgable party approved the use of a prop) and it doesn't seem to hold water.

Does this work - A postal worker is told by a supervisor that the delivery truck they have used a thousand times has gas in it and the brakes work. Even if they may be aware that the head mechanic is new, they can reasonable assume that (a) "new" does not equal "doesn't know what they're talking about," (b) these are basic things that should not ever be issues and therefore (c) there is no reason to doubt the report.

That worker should - and will - glance at the dashboard dial, but they will trust it (and the statement) without further investigation. And certainly they will not be crawling under the vehicle to check the brakes - nor would there be any such expectation. Are they in any way at fault if the brakes don't work? Should they grill the mechanic personally, or be able to presume the hiring manager did so? etc.

[ntnon]

A summary today is curious:

Tuesday's charging document outlines a number of "acts or omissions of recklessness" that lead to the shooting. Those include not using a replica firearm for an unscheduled rehearsal, letting the armorer leave the set, not performing required safety checks, and not dealing with safety complaints on the set.

The assistant director of Rust, David Halls, handed the weapon to Baldwin before the shooting and is facing a single misdemeanor count of negligent use of a deadly weapon.

All of that seems to be non-Baldwin, though the next paragraph talked on his distraction during a one hour class.

However, it also more specifically calls him out for pointing the gun and quotes "Robert Shilling, a special investigator for the district attorney's office" who wrote

"If Baldwin had performed the mandatory safety checks with the armorer and not pointed the gun at Hutchins, the tragedy would not have occurred"

Unless that's hyperbole or editorialised, it strongly implies that he thinks the actor IS supposed to check. That seems to go against what other industry people said at the time..

[Lemmy Caution]

Guns are inherently dangerous under all circumstances. Which is why there are often extra penalties for committing a crime with a gun without needing the gun to be used. In this case, the greater charge of reckless endangerment involuntary manslaughter can carry an extra five years if a gun was involved.
I think the focus has to be on the use/misuse of a gun.

From what I've read, it seems an actor is expected/required? to check a prop gun before use. Commonly by having the armorer recheck the weapon in front of the actor. Industry people here can probably address what the standard is. I'm not surprised if actors sometimes are not scrupulous about or skip the checking, relying on professionals as Baldwin did, but if that isn't the prescribed industry safety standard, then it is trouble when something goes wrong.

As for Baldwin, he did accept a gun (from arguably the wrong person) without checking it, pointed it at another person. That's three potentially questionable/careless actions Baldwin took, resulting in the death of Hutchins. He was also an executive on the project, which had a series of safety issues. And allegedly was less than fully engaged as actor with gun safety aspects.

I think the charges stem from a pattern of carelessness both on his part as an actor, and for the production itself on which he was an exec. The legal standard is essentially what a reasonable person would/should have done, along with what the plaintiff knew or should have known of the danger/risk. The earlier misfires, part of the crew walking off due to safety concerns, a young inexperienced (and missing) armorer all point to safety issues that Baldwin either knew or should have known about. Under those circumstances, it can be argued that Baldwin's duty to use reasonable care was heightened.

Initially, I was surprised Baldwin was charged. But as more alleged facts dribble out, it makes more sense. I think Baldwin's legal team will wait to see what deal Halls the assistant director gets. Baldwin might be willing to accept a plea deal that nets him a probationary sentence, if available; though that could expose him to a significant civil judgment, unless his liability was precluded under the settlement the production company made with her estate/family.

Lastly, the prosecutors are asserting that a plastic or replica gun should have been used at a rehearsal. I have no idea what the industry practice/standard is, but Baldwin's lawyers can argue that since he was practicing a certain type of draw, it would be important to use the actual prop with its specific size and weight to effectively practice the cross-draw maneuver.

Ugh, too much speculation. Hope that's helpful.

[captveg]

Did anyone answer why none of the other producers are being charged? If Baldwin is being (partially) charged as a producer, shouldn't every producer get that same charge?

[ntnon]

From what I've read, it seems an actor is expected/required? to check a prop gun before use. Commonly by having the armorer recheck the weapon in front of the actor. Industry people here can probably address what the standard is. I'm not surprised if actors sometimes are not scrupulous about or skip the checking, relying on professionals as Baldwin did, but if that isn't the prescribed industry safety standard, then it is trouble when something goes wrong.

Despite several reports to the contrary (referred to above), I do now see that Equity's safety tips - https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/ ... -firearms/ - do specifically require the actor to check the weapon themself.

Elsewhere, though, the NYT (et al.) note that lawyers for Baldwin specifically refer to him recalling being trained to only let the expert check the weapon..

[furbicide]

Did anyone answer why none of the other producers are being charged? If Baldwin is being (partially) charged as a producer, shouldn't every producer get that same charge?

This is my thought too. The producers should collectively be in the dock because the buck stops with them, but charging Baldwin for being the actor who had the misfortune of holding the gun is bullshit.