Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Alec Baldwin indicted for involuntary manslaughter in fatal gunfire on film set


Still Waters

Recommended Posts

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.

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/jan/19/alec-baldwin-indicted-shooting-rust-movie

Related:

 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who isn't familiar with the old single-action revolver and who is wondering how Baldwin could say he didn't "pull the trigger" yet the gun went off:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanning_(firearms)#:~:text=Fanning is a revolver shooting technique in which,without touching any other parts of the gun.

It's actually pretty simple.  When he reached across his body to draw the pistol, as part of that drawing movement he probably depressed the trigger automatically, without thinking about it and pulled the hammer back under his thumb.  At some point he just let go of the hammer and *boom*

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Bavarian Raven said:

About time. 

These guns on a film set are supposed to be fake, non-working immitations.

Baldwin just acted in jest with a gun that should not have been able to fire live ammo.

Baldwin is not guilty, but the one not warning the actors about these immitations ìs.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has gone on way too long.   He and others on his crew should have been indicted long ago.

31 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

These guns on a film set are supposed to be fake, non-working immitations.

Baldwin just acted in jest with a gun that should not have been able to fire live ammo.

Baldwin is not guilty, but the one not warning the actors about these immitations ìs.

No they are not suposed to be fake, they are supposed to have blanks or be unloaded.   A low budget film like the one he was doing does not have money for someone to make the bangs in synch with the shooter in the scene.   Probably doesn't even have money for sound effects to be added in editing.   This film was so low budget the union crew walked off because of bad conditions and non-union crew was hired, people who had never been on a movie crew or had not done the job they were hired to do for this film.   The props person is responsible for all the props and testing the weapons before they are given to the actors, but that woman had never been a props manager before, she was someone's daughter and got the job as a favor.   AND all actors handling weapons should check the weapon before the scene starts.   None of that was done so he is liable as is his props manager.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

AND all actors handling weapons should check the weapon before the scene starts.

It's really the first time I heard about this rule.

How do you know? You've been an actress? In that case I'm really curious... :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the gun is a prop in a movie. Then why would real bullets be allowed on set? 

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Abramelin said:

It's really the first time I heard about this rule.

How do you know? You've been an actress? In that case I'm really curious... :yes:

Because it's a standard safety rule when handling any guns and Baldwin naive as he was about guns didn't have the common sense to check the revolver before handling it. He might have known when some kid prop manager and her friends were using the guns as target practice forgot to empty the guns of the real bullets after practice. He just assumed (and we all know what the word assume means) the prop manager put blanks back into the revolver. lol.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has to be the worst run investigation of a major crime since the murder of that little girl in Colorado, JonBenét Ramsey. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Unusual Tournament said:

If the gun is a prop in a movie. Then why would real bullets be allowed on set? 

Its possible someone sabotaged the set. As Desertrat stated "the union crew walked off because of bad conditions". Many people flip out when they lose jobs. It sounds very malicious but I wouldn't be surprised.

Edited by Bed of chaos
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Abramelin said:

These guns on a film set are supposed to be fake, non-working immitations.

Baldwin just acted in jest with a gun that should not have been able to fire live ammo.

Baldwin is not guilty, but the one not warning the actors about these immitations ìs.

He was guilty of mishandling a weapon he KNEW to be potentially deadly.  He's been around long enough to know that there are not often "second chances" where mishandling a firearm are concerned.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From an embedded link in the OP about the report that this is based on:

Quote

The new gun analysis from experts in ballistics and forensic testing based in Arizona and New Mexico relied on replacement parts to reassemble the gun fired by Baldwin — after parts of the pistol were broken during earlier testing by the FBI. The new report examines the gun and markings it left on a spent cartridge to conclude that the trigger had to have been pulled or depressed.

If I were Baldwin's lawyer I'd be calling for charges to be dropped as the prosecution/FBI broke the evidence and therefore defence cannot get their own independent testing done on the gun in the same condition as the day of the shooting!

Not sure how successful such an argument is, I'm no lawyer,  but that would seem to be the logical course. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, and-then said:

He was guilty of mishandling a weapon he KNEW to be potentially deadly.  He's been around long enough to know that there are not often "second chances" where mishandling a firearm are concerned.

I see your point, it’s valid, yet still I ask why have professional armourers on set if you have to do their job too. Is there a current actors code to handle firearms? Without a proven motive to kill Halyna Hutchins, it makes no sense to even charge Baldwin with a secondary charge without charging the producers, director and armorers first.

Edited by Unusual Tournament
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Bed of chaos said:

Its possible someone sabotaged the set. As Desertrat stated "the union crew walked off because of bad conditions". Many people flip out when they lose jobs. It sounds very malicious but I wouldn't be surprised.

It’s possible. The world is full of sicko’s and I would have had major concerns if I was Baldwin if the ‘union crew walked off’. 
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

I see your point, it’s valid, yet still I ask why have professional armourers on set if you have to do their job too. Is there a current actors code to handle firearms? Without a proven motive to kill Halyna Hutchins, it makes no sense to even charge Baldwin with a secondary charge without charging the producers, director and armorers first.

I don't own guns but know friends (hunters) who do. I've been told (more than once) once a gun is in your possession its 100% your responsibility what happens. Supposedly the gun used was real, colt revolver. I don't think actors should be exempt from rule. Or don't use a real gun. If you exclude the rule it creates, pass along the buck, nonsense.

Two months ago some idiot close to me (Wilkes Barre P.A.) accidentally shot his cousin, waving gun around, while making rap video. Should he get a pass too? I do believe the armorer is partially responsible though Baldwin ultimately pulled the trigger. A similar analogy? If I bought heroin and accidentally overdosed. Then told everyone nothing's my fault. It's the dealer or I'm completely innocent.

Edited by Bed of chaos
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was raised around guns.  Gun safety was drilled into our heads before we were ever allowed to touch one.  Once that gun is in your hand, you don't point it at anything you do not plan to kill.   Waiving it around was not only a reason to get target practice privileges taken away, but could result in a cuff up side the head. 

There are too many accidental deaths from people who do not respect the gun and what it can do.  If I can shoot a whole completely through metal cans, what can that same bullet do to a human body?  I think Baldwin was negligent in his carelessness.  Sure accidents happen,  but when it comes to a gun in someone's hand, it is no accident.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unusual Tournament said:

Without a proven motive to kill Halyna Hutchins, it makes no sense to even charge Baldwin

Manslaughter requires no intent to kill.  If I recklessly handle a firearm and kill someone then I am responsible for ending their life.  I didn't murder them but they would not have died if I had acted safely.  It may be more just to charge everyone in the chain of responsibility whose failures also led to those deaths but that doesn't change the fact that he was literally the one who fired the weapon.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, glorybebe said:

I was raised around guns.  Gun safety was drilled into our heads before we were ever allowed to touch one.  Once that gun is in your hand, you don't point it at anything you do not plan to kill.   Waiving it around was not only a reason to get target practice privileges taken away, but could result in a cuff up side the head. 

There are too many accidental deaths from people who do not respect the gun and what it can do.  If I can shoot a whole completely through metal cans, what can that same bullet do to a human body?  I think Baldwin was negligent in his carelessness.  Sure accidents happen,  but when it comes to a gun in someone's hand, it is no accident.

I began teaching my daughter gun safety at the age of SIX.  I'd take her along to the range and we talked about the dangers at home, on the way to the range, and while we were there.  She's 29 now and if I asked her what is the first rule about guns she'll say - 'THEY ARE ALWAYS LOADED"  What's the second rule?  DON'T FORGET THE FIRST RULE" :) 

I also made it clear that she should understand that ANY TIME anyone is handling a gun, even if they just bring it into the room to show it to someone or to talk about it, there is a very real chance that someone could die, especially if the person handling the weapon is a stranger she knows nothing about.  I've encouraged her to leave such situations immediately.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Unusual Tournament said:

It’s possible. The world is full of sicko’s and I would have had major concerns if I was Baldwin if the ‘union crew walked off’. 
 

I recall there being lots of evidence that this movie set was generally unprofessional and safety was pushed aside for the sake of speeding up production.  All of those "tedious" and tiresome rules are intentionally made that way to demand a rigid protocol that excludes any chance of someone dying acccidentally.  They got casual with the rules and she paid with her life :(  Instead of prison, I'd sentence him to 5 years of dedicated public service where he traveled the country teaching students and young people in general how to safely handle a weapon and the consequences of failing to do so.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, and-then said:

Manslaughter requires no intent to kill.  If I recklessly handle a firearm and kill someone then I am responsible for ending their life.  I didn't murder them but they would not have died if I had acted safely.  It may be more just to charge everyone in the chain of responsibility whose failures also led to those deaths but that doesn't change the fact that he was literally the one who fired the weapon.

As far as Baldwin was concerned it was a fake gun. Doesn’t that count?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Unusual Tournament said:

As far as Baldwin was concerned it was a fake gun. Doesn’t that count?

I wonder who would be charged with manslaughter if Baldwin had accidentily killed himsèlf.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I wonder who would be charged with manslaughter if Baldwin had accidentily killed himsèlf.

You're right Abe.  The excuse that Hutchins' death was the result of a low budget is ridiculous.  There are lower budget films made around the globe everyday; but, actors killed by guns only happe a in America.  The cost of post production processing is cheaper and more accessible than ever.

To answer your question.

Quote

The death [of Jon-Erik Hexum] was ruled accidental. His mother later received an out-of-court settlement from 20th Century Fox Television and Glen A. Larson Productions, the production company behind Cover Up.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon-Erik_Hexum

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

There are lower budget films made around the globe everyday; but, actors killed by guns only happen in America.  

🤔 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, acidhead said:

🤔 

Thanks, I also wonder why that's not returned in Google result. 

That case is doe a Bliss n Eso music video.  So low budget.

The armourer suplied illegal guns and would have been subject to many charges, including OH&S breaches.

The armourer died of natural causes so no charges were laid.

It's another precedent that shows the the fault was not with the actor pulling the trigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/20/2024 at 9:14 AM, Abramelin said:

It's really the first time I heard about this rule.

How do you know? You've been an actress? In that case I'm really curious... :yes:

I am not an actress, I have done extra work on movies and televisioin, but it was explained when the first news story came out about the shooting.   And IT IS COMMON SENSE when you know you are handling an actual weapon.   Also, there are lots of murder mysteries about prop weapons being used during a performance to kill an actor by switching something, changing a blank to a bullet, taking the safety tape off a knife etc.   COMMON SENSE!   Alec Baldwin is not new to the industry nor was this the first time he was in a western movie with guns.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.