Actor Alex Baldwin charged w involuntary manslaughter - is it fair?

In general, the role of a producer is to secure the financing for the money, hire a director, recruit major actors and crew talent, handle major issues of logistics, advertising, and handle the deals for distribution of the film.

On a film shoot, the director is in charge, not the producer.

DarkOz and Gordon, you are both missing the point I think. BillHasRetired did not argue that “Alex has a producer Credit therefore he is responsible.” He argued that Alex was in fact in charge in the set and ultimately the responsible person. That is a factual assertion that may be true or false, but it is not rebuttable by arguments about what a producer’s typical job is. Because Bill’s argument was not premised on what a producer tends to do.

Anyway.

I found this article interesting and helpful. Unlike much of the speculation in this thread it quotes the New Mexico AG about the theory of why Alec was charged.

https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/alec-baldwin-rust-charges-why/42581449

People should feel free to disagree with the New Mexico AG about what she says. That’s better than arguing against straw men, or tilting at wind mills.

Quote: unJon

DarkOz and Gordon, you are both missing the point I think. BillHasRetired did not argue that “Alex has a producer Credit therefore he is responsible.” He argued that Alex was in fact in charge in the set and ultimately the responsible person. That is a factual assertion that may be true or false, but it is not rebuttable by arguments about what a producer’s typical job is. Because Bill’s argument was not premised on what a producer tends to do.

Anyway.

I found this article interesting and helpful. Unlike much of the speculation in this thread it quotes the New Mexico AG about the theory of why Alec was charged.

https://www.kcra.com/amp/article/alec-baldwin-rust-charges-why/42581449

People should feel free to disagree with the New Mexico AG about what she says. That’s better than arguing against straw men, or tilting at wind mills.
link to original post

Why do you or Bill believe Alec Baldwin was in charge on the set? That would be the director. Very rarely is a director allowing a producer to "direct" the film in essence by being in charge.

At any rate thanks for the article Link. CNN legal analyst came to the same conclusion I did about charging Alec as producer.

From the article:

Yeah article is helpful. And I never said Alec was in charge. I was really clear in what I said.

Quote: darkoz

(snipped)
Except every single one of those rules was not violated!

Your rule one:. The gun should have been checked and cleared.
It was supposed to have bullets just dummy rounds.

"Checked and cleared" means safety on (bare minimum), magazine out, chamber cleared. What the armorer handed the next person in line (and the A/D does NOT report to the armorer) was a weapon that was loaded, and a round loaded into the chamber. The status of the safety I don't know.
Look, I'm not some kind of NRA plant: I haven't fired a weapon since 1987. I've forgotten more weapons safety than most people ever know, but I retained this much: a) treat all weapons like they're loaded, and b) never trust what someone tells you about the status of a weapon. If arrogant Alec had followed these minimal rules (like checking the freaking safety for the rehearsal of a scene) then the cinemaphotographer would be alive. He didn't, he's negligent, and he's going down (in a sane world)

Quote: darkoz

Your rule two: the gun should come from the armourer own hands or one who reports to the armourer.
Okay that was the assistant director who checked the gun before giving it to Alec. He didn't check it well and that's why he's already pled guilty.

Unless he changed the status of the safety, the AD (who does NOT report to the armorer) merely passed along an weapon that already unsafe. The armorer was negligent, the A/D was negligent, but neither pointed the weapon at the victim. They contributed to the disaster.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule three: All guns should be stored until being rehearsed/filmed
The scene was being rehearsed

All the more reason for Alec to take a moment to ensure the weapon's safety was ON. But more to the point, several crew have already come forward with tales of prop weapons being used for target practice with live ammo. If the prop weapons were never allowed out of the gun safe except for movie work, that's just one more way this disaster could have been averted.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule four: guns on set should not be used for anything else
From what I read those were disputes rumors.

From what I read, crew members admitted to target shooting with prop weapons and live ammo. Others seconded the stories. We'll see what the real evidence is when the trial starts.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule five: no live ammunition should be around the set
Agreed. This rule was violated

Actors are hired based on acting skill. They often don't have experience with what they are doing onscreen. Whether they are playing an astronaut, judge, serial killer or gunman. Their job is to just make a performance believable.

True. However, that doesn't mean Keanu Reeves signs a contract, stops off at makeup and wardrobe, and blazes away on the set of John Wick #27. Let me ask you: would you allow anyone onto your set, handling weapons, and NOT want to provide them with a comprehensive weapons safety class, as well as tasking the A/D with enforcing weapons safety on the set? According to some witnesses, such was the case with Rust under Alec Baldwin.

Quote: darkoz

As far as the bills piling up that's being handled by the "completion guarantor" which is insurance this Production would have for such calamity. The insurance company will do whatever is in its power to get Rust back on track as well as the Unions involved and the studio. Millions of dollars are at stake here. Trust me people will show up once production resumes
link to original post

I won't dispute this, I've got no contrary info. However, if you were an insurance company, wouldn't you jack the rates up with this guy in charge?

Quote: BillHasRetired

Quote: darkoz

(snipped)
Except every single one of those rules was not violated!

Your rule one:. The gun should have been checked and cleared.
It was supposed to have bullets just dummy rounds.

"Checked and cleared" means safety on (bare minimum), magazine out, chamber cleared. What the armorer handed the next person in line (and the A/D does NOT report to the armorer) was a weapon that was loaded, and a round loaded into the chamber. The status of the safety I don't know.
Look, I'm not some kind of NRA plant: I haven't fired a weapon since 1987. I've forgotten more weapons safety than most people ever know, but I retained this much: a) treat all weapons like they're loaded, and b) never trust what someone tells you about the status of a weapon. If arrogant Alec had followed these minimal rules (like checking the freaking safety for the rehearsal of a scene) then the cinemaphotographer would be alive. He didn't, he's negligent, and he's going down (in a sane world)

Quote: darkoz

Your rule two: the gun should come from the armourer own hands or one who reports to the armourer.
Okay that was the assistant director who checked the gun before giving it to Alec. He didn't check it well and that's why he's already pled guilty.

Unless he changed the status of the safety, the AD (who does NOT report to the armorer) merely passed along an weapon that already unsafe. The armorer was negligent, the A/D was negligent, but neither pointed the weapon at the victim. They contributed to the disaster.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule three: All guns should be stored until being rehearsed/filmed
The scene was being rehearsed

All the more reason for Alec to take a moment to ensure the weapon's safety was ON. But more to the point, several crew have already come forward with tales of prop weapons being used for target practice with live ammo. If the prop weapons were never allowed out of the gun safe except for movie work, that's just one more way this disaster could have been averted.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule four: guns on set should not be used for anything else
From what I read those were disputes rumors.

From what I read, crew members admitted to target shooting with prop weapons and live ammo. Others seconded the stories. We'll see what the real evidence is when the trial starts.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule five: no live ammunition should be around the set
Agreed. This rule was violated

Actors are hired based on acting skill. They often don't have experience with what they are doing onscreen. Whether they are playing an astronaut, judge, serial killer or gunman. Their job is to just make a performance believable.

True. However, that doesn't mean Keanu Reeves signs a contract, stops off at makeup and wardrobe, and blazes away on the set of John Wick #27. Let me ask you: would you allow anyone onto your set, handling weapons, and NOT want to provide them with a comprehensive weapons safety class, as well as tasking the A/D with enforcing weapons safety on the set? According to some witnesses, such was the case with Rust under Alec Baldwin.

Quote: darkoz

As far as the bills piling up that's being handled by the "completion guarantor" which is insurance this Production would have for such calamity. The insurance company will do whatever is in its power to get Rust back on track as well as the Unions involved and the studio. Millions of dollars are at stake here. Trust me people will show up once production resumes
link to original post

I won't dispute this, I've got no contrary info. However, if you were an insurance company, wouldn't you jack the rates up with this guy in charge?
link to original post

I don't understand why you keep insisting the gun should have been empty. They were about to shoot a scene where the gun was supposed to loaded and fired

Why was there a live round in the gun is the question. We wouldn't be here if Alec Baldwin had accidentally fired a blank.

As for the insurance question sure the price should be hiked. There are serious issues at stake that will cost the completion guarantor money.

Quote: darkoz

Quote: BillHasRetired

Quote: darkoz

(snipped)
Except every single one of those rules was not violated!

Your rule one:. The gun should have been checked and cleared.
It was supposed to have bullets just dummy rounds.

"Checked and cleared" means safety on (bare minimum), magazine out, chamber cleared. What the armorer handed the next person in line (and the A/D does NOT report to the armorer) was a weapon that was loaded, and a round loaded into the chamber. The status of the safety I don't know.
Look, I'm not some kind of NRA plant: I haven't fired a weapon since 1987. I've forgotten more weapons safety than most people ever know, but I retained this much: a) treat all weapons like they're loaded, and b) never trust what someone tells you about the status of a weapon. If arrogant Alec had followed these minimal rules (like checking the freaking safety for the rehearsal of a scene) then the cinemaphotographer would be alive. He didn't, he's negligent, and he's going down (in a sane world)

Quote: darkoz

Your rule two: the gun should come from the armourer own hands or one who reports to the armourer.
Okay that was the assistant director who checked the gun before giving it to Alec. He didn't check it well and that's why he's already pled guilty.

Unless he changed the status of the safety, the AD (who does NOT report to the armorer) merely passed along an weapon that already unsafe. The armorer was negligent, the A/D was negligent, but neither pointed the weapon at the victim. They contributed to the disaster.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule three: All guns should be stored until being rehearsed/filmed
The scene was being rehearsed

All the more reason for Alec to take a moment to ensure the weapon's safety was ON. But more to the point, several crew have already come forward with tales of prop weapons being used for target practice with live ammo. If the prop weapons were never allowed out of the gun safe except for movie work, that's just one more way this disaster could have been averted.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule four: guns on set should not be used for anything else
From what I read those were disputes rumors.

From what I read, crew members admitted to target shooting with prop weapons and live ammo. Others seconded the stories. We'll see what the real evidence is when the trial starts.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule five: no live ammunition should be around the set
Agreed. This rule was violated

Actors are hired based on acting skill. They often don't have experience with what they are doing onscreen. Whether they are playing an astronaut, judge, serial killer or gunman. Their job is to just make a performance believable.

True. However, that doesn't mean Keanu Reeves signs a contract, stops off at makeup and wardrobe, and blazes away on the set of John Wick #27. Let me ask you: would you allow anyone onto your set, handling weapons, and NOT want to provide them with a comprehensive weapons safety class, as well as tasking the A/D with enforcing weapons safety on the set? According to some witnesses, such was the case with Rust under Alec Baldwin.

Quote: darkoz

As far as the bills piling up that's being handled by the "completion guarantor" which is insurance this Production would have for such calamity. The insurance company will do whatever is in its power to get Rust back on track as well as the Unions involved and the studio. Millions of dollars are at stake here. Trust me people will show up once production resumes
link to original post

I won't dispute this, I've got no contrary info. However, if you were an insurance company, wouldn't you jack the rates up with this guy in charge?
link to original post

I don't understand why you keep insisting the gun should have been empty. They were about to shoot a scene where the gun was supposed to loaded and fired

Why was there a live round in the gun is the question. We wouldn't be here if Alec Baldwin had accidentally fired a blank.

As for the insurance question sure the price should be hiked. There are serious issues at stake that will cost the completion guarantor money.
link to original post

I think the question re Alec as actor is simple:

Is it negligent to point and shoot a gun you are told has blanks without checking it yourself.

The question of Alec as producer is more complicated and depends on his responsibilities.

Quote: unJon

Quote: darkoz

Quote: BillHasRetired

Quote: darkoz

(snipped)
Except every single one of those rules was not violated!

Your rule one:. The gun should have been checked and cleared.
It was supposed to have bullets just dummy rounds.

"Checked and cleared" means safety on (bare minimum), magazine out, chamber cleared. What the armorer handed the next person in line (and the A/D does NOT report to the armorer) was a weapon that was loaded, and a round loaded into the chamber. The status of the safety I don't know.
Look, I'm not some kind of NRA plant: I haven't fired a weapon since 1987. I've forgotten more weapons safety than most people ever know, but I retained this much: a) treat all weapons like they're loaded, and b) never trust what someone tells you about the status of a weapon. If arrogant Alec had followed these minimal rules (like checking the freaking safety for the rehearsal of a scene) then the cinemaphotographer would be alive. He didn't, he's negligent, and he's going down (in a sane world)

Quote: darkoz

Your rule two: the gun should come from the armourer own hands or one who reports to the armourer.
Okay that was the assistant director who checked the gun before giving it to Alec. He didn't check it well and that's why he's already pled guilty.

Unless he changed the status of the safety, the AD (who does NOT report to the armorer) merely passed along an weapon that already unsafe. The armorer was negligent, the A/D was negligent, but neither pointed the weapon at the victim. They contributed to the disaster.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule three: All guns should be stored until being rehearsed/filmed
The scene was being rehearsed

All the more reason for Alec to take a moment to ensure the weapon's safety was ON. But more to the point, several crew have already come forward with tales of prop weapons being used for target practice with live ammo. If the prop weapons were never allowed out of the gun safe except for movie work, that's just one more way this disaster could have been averted.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule four: guns on set should not be used for anything else
From what I read those were disputes rumors.

From what I read, crew members admitted to target shooting with prop weapons and live ammo. Others seconded the stories. We'll see what the real evidence is when the trial starts.

Quote: darkoz

Your rule five: no live ammunition should be around the set
Agreed. This rule was violated

Actors are hired based on acting skill. They often don't have experience with what they are doing onscreen. Whether they are playing an astronaut, judge, serial killer or gunman. Their job is to just make a performance believable.

True. However, that doesn't mean Keanu Reeves signs a contract, stops off at makeup and wardrobe, and blazes away on the set of John Wick #27. Let me ask you: would you allow anyone onto your set, handling weapons, and NOT want to provide them with a comprehensive weapons safety class, as well as tasking the A/D with enforcing weapons safety on the set? According to some witnesses, such was the case with Rust under Alec Baldwin.

Quote: darkoz

As far as the bills piling up that's being handled by the "completion guarantor" which is insurance this Production would have for such calamity. The insurance company will do whatever is in its power to get Rust back on track as well as the Unions involved and the studio. Millions of dollars are at stake here. Trust me people will show up once production resumes
link to original post

I won't dispute this, I've got no contrary info. However, if you were an insurance company, wouldn't you jack the rates up with this guy in charge?
link to original post

I don't understand why you keep insisting the gun should have been empty. They were about to shoot a scene where the gun was supposed to loaded and fired

Why was there a live round in the gun is the question. We wouldn't be here if Alec Baldwin had accidentally fired a blank.

As for the insurance question sure the price should be hiked. There are serious issues at stake that will cost the completion guarantor money.
link to original post

I think the question re Alec as actor is simple:

Is it negligent to point and shoot a gun you are told has blanks without checking it yourself.

The question of Alec as producer is more complicated and depends on his responsibilities.
link to original post

If I'm in a situation where my job involves a gun being pointed at me, I'm going to be the one checking the gun and handing it to whoever is pointing it at me. Assuming proper training and competence with anyone involved in a movie dealing with guns... Problem solved. Obviously, there's always the chance that multiple people just go through the motions and assume everything is safe.

just for the record, a revolver does not have a safety

I only recently determined myself, because of this case in fact, that a revolver is very safe without one. You absolutely cannot fire a modern one unless you:

-cock it first

OR

-very determinedly pull the trigger in a double action type [no such thing as a hair trigger for double action]

AND

in all cases you have to pull the trigger

if you have cocked the gun, you can very safely uncock it. If the trigger slips away and slams forward, it still won't fire [Baldwin tried to say this happened], assuming you aren't pulling the trigger. For a very long time, at least 100 years if not more, there has been a mechanism to prevent firing as soon as the trigger moves back forward. This in particular I just learned.

IIRC Baldwin's revolver was not double action [meaning being able to fire without cocking first, just pulling the trigger]

An FBI forensics report said the weapon could not be fired during FBI testing of its normal functioning without pulling the trigger while the gun was cocked.

The report also noted the gun eventually malfunctioned during testing after internal parts fractured, which caused the gun to go off in the cocked position without pulling the trigger.

The prop gun was being held by Baldwin, who has maintained he did not pull the trigger.
***********
Live rounds were mixed in with dummy rounds on the set, and crews were not checking ammunition regularly, Carmack-Altwies said.

"There was such a lack of safety and safety standards on that set... There were live rounds on set," she added.

"Nobody was checking those or at least they weren't checking them consistently. And then they somehow got loaded into a gun handed off to Alec Baldwin. He didn't check it. He didn't do any of the things that he was supposed to do to make sure that he was safe or that anyone around him was safe. And then he pointed the gun at Halyna Hutchins and he pulled the trigger."

Carmack-Altwies described the production as "a really fast and loose set" when it came to safety and said "nobody was doing their job."
**********
And the director Joel Souza was shot!
Assistant Director David Halls signed a plea agreement for negligent use of a deadly weapon and will get 6 months probation and may assist in the prosecution of the two named defendants.

Not familiar with the exact guidelines within safety protocols for work with prop guns and real guns on set but imo the actors should not be held liable nor even allowed to check/clear the gun before filming or rehearsing.

The chain of command should consist of at least two persons checking sequentially every single gun and the ammo in use for a given scene - the armorer and then (usually) the 1-st or 2-nd etc assistant director. Them and them ONLY.
If I as AD am tasked with double checking guns before handing them to the actors and bearing full responsibility for it and I see an actor meddling with the gun before filming I'm shouting "the hell are you doing???", seizing the weapon and double checking it again. I don't want no chance, however slim, to exist that someone is negligently or potentially maliciously meddling with guns or ammos I'm specifically tasked with their safety with. If actors so choose to, they can be present while the armorer and/or the AD are making sure the props are safe to use for their peace of mind as well.

So I don't think Alec Baldwin as an actor should be responsible for making sure himself the weapon was safe before pointing it to the camera crew. It shouldn't be his responsibility nor even his right to do so. That responsibility should lie with the people in command responsible for gun safety and them alone. As an actor he COULD make sure the armorer and AD were doing their job properly though.

Alec as a producer being present on set is a very different story though.

If I hand you a gun and tell you it is empty, are you responsible if you aim it at someone and kill them? Am I?

Quote: billryan

If I hand you a gun and tell you it is empty, are you responsible if you aim it at someone and kill them? Am I?
link to original post

Need more context. Who are you? What is your authority and responsibilities? Who am I? What is my authority and responsibilities?
In what environment and under which circumstances are we interacting?

We on a movie set and you being a professional armorer and me an actor with limited or no experience with guns and you tell me it's all good, we filming now the weapon is empty, is one thing.

Me and you in the bar playing cowboys is different thing.

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: billryan

If I hand you a gun and tell you it is empty, are you responsible if you aim it at someone and kill them? Am I?
link to original post

Need more context. Who are you? What is your authority and responsibilities? Who am I? What is my authority and responsibilities?
In what environment and under which circumstances are we interacting?

We on a movie set and you being a professional armorer and me an actor with limited or no experience with guns and you tell me it's all good, we filming now the weapon is empty, is one thing.

Me and you in the bar playing cowboys is different thing.
link to original post

Why? Can you tell me what other circumstances a person can point a gun at someone else and not be responsible when it goes off?

Quote: billryan

Quote: rawtuff

Quote: billryan

If I hand you a gun and tell you it is empty, are you responsible if you aim it at someone and kill them? Am I?
link to original post

Need more context. Who are you? What is your authority and responsibilities? Who am I? What is my authority and responsibilities?
In what environment and under which circumstances are we interacting?

We on a movie set and you being a professional armorer and me an actor with limited or no experience with guns and you tell me it's all good, we filming now the weapon is empty, is one thing.

Me and you in the bar playing cowboys is different thing.
link to original post

Why? Can you tell me what other circumstances a person can point a gun at someone else and not be responsible when it goes off?
link to original post

In circumstances similar to what I described above. It would be yours (the armorer's) responsibility. They handed the gun to the actor and assured them that it was empty and safe. The armorer has a duty to ensure the safety of all cast and crew members, and if they failed to properly check the gun or ensure that it was not loaded, they could be held liable for any resulting injuries or deaths.
The actor does not have to and sometimes, could not, even if they wanted, verify the safety of the prop weapon.

Additionally, the production company could also be held liable for not having proper safety protocols in place and not providing proper training or equipment to the cast and crew.

People rely on professionals all the time

Scenario:. A mother takes her child to the doctor and he prescribed medication. She asks if it's safe to use for her child and the doctor says yes

She gives her kid the medication and it's not safe. He dies

Should the mother be charged with involuntary manslaughter because she's the one who handed her child the medication? Is the argument she should not have taken the doctor's advice and done her own online research so she is guilty of murder?

Quote: darkoz

People rely on professionals all the time

Scenario:. A mother takes her child to the doctor and he prescribed medication. She asks if it's safe to use for her child and the doctor says yes

She gives her kid the medication and it's not safe. He dies

Should the mother be charged with involuntary manslaughter because she's the one who handed her child the medication? Is the argument she should not have taken the doctor's advice and done her own online research so she is guilty of murder?
link to original post

How about the simple act of boarding a plane? None of the passengers can reasonably be expected to check on the safety of the wings/engines/GPS systems/etc….

How about eating in a restaurant? Can you check for salmonella yourself or do you DEPEND on the practices of the restaurateur?

There are just so many things that we depend on other people/systems to keep us safe that we don’t even think of. One misprogrammed traffic light to have all sides green…..
Train coming by but the gate didn’t block traffic….

The charges are correct. The person holding the weapon is responsible for ensuring the safety of the weapon.

As Executive Producer, Baldwin was responsible for everything that happened on the set.

On top of that, ‘Rust’ crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting'

'Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold”

“There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”

As Exec. Producer, this was all Baldwin's responsibility.

Why did he fire the weapon in the first place? Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell says it was not in the script.

His wife asking reporters to leave the family alone.

Quote: Tanko

Why did he fire the weapon in the first place? Script supervisor Mamie Mitchell says it was not in the script.

His wife asking reporters to leave the family alone.
link to original post

Scripts are not like construction blueprints or schematics. They are rarely followed to the letter. Often rewrites are done on a daily basis. The comments it wasn't in the script is meaningless. They are artists and make choices to do things differently from the writing all the time

Actors and directors ad lib. Screenwriters have been known to even take their names off projects that got rewritten on set to the point they didn't want the credit.

BTW, Alec Baldwin is producer. Not executive producer. If he was executive producer he would be even more blameless. The executive producer has almost zero control. It's a credit for people who do almost nothing but the film would be impossible without them.

A good example would be you have the film rights to a novel. Steven Spielberg wants to make it into a movie. He can't do it without you agreeing so he makes you executive producer. You have no say in how Spielberg shoots his film. That's Executive Producer.

(clipped)

Quote: AxelWolf

. Obviously, there's always the chance that multiple people just go through the motions and assume everything is safe.
link to original post

I've seen this happen when there are multiple checks. It's fortunately rare when multiple people skip a check at the same time. (oh, I know this other person also does it everyday so he'll catch anything wrong if I miss it today) But if you're dealing with a potentially dangerous event, it can be a disaster if everyone skips a check at the same time. Wouldn't be surprised if that's a cause of some really bad events much bigger than a single shooting.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

People rely on professionals all the time

Scenario:. A mother takes her child to the doctor and he prescribed medication. She asks if it's safe to use for her child and the doctor says yes

She gives her kid the medication and it's not safe. He dies

Should the mother be charged with involuntary manslaughter because she's the one who handed her child the medication? Is the argument she should not have taken the doctor's advice and done her own online research so she is guilty of murder?
link to original post

How about the simple act of boarding a plane? None of the passengers can reasonably be expected to check on the safety of the wings/engines/GPS systems/etc….

How about eating in a restaurant? Can you check for salmonella yourself or do you DEPEND on the practices of the restaurateur?

There are just so many things that we depend on other people/systems to keep us safe that we don’t even think of. One misprogrammed traffic light to have all sides green…..
Train coming by but the gate didn’t block traffic….
link to original post

I can’t do any of those things, but I can check if the gun I’m holding is loaded with live rounds. And I do that 100% of the time I’m handed a gun I didn’t load myself.

I do have some final thoughts on this, even though the thread is going strong on other matters

-I didn’t know about the FBI damaging the gun. I think it was during testing, in order to see if there was any way - any - to make it fire without pulling the trigger. Original revolver design, as I understand it, allowed this possibility. You might have such a gun go off if you dropped it and the hammer was struck, even though the gun was uncocked. For that to happen with improved design would mean the prohibiting part failed, as the improved version kept the hammer from touching the cartridge primer unless the trigger is pulled. Apparently the testing had them striking the hammer as hard as they could to get it to fire even with this design.

-Now that Baldwin is not being charged with intentionally killing the woman, Halyna Hutchins, we have to assume the evidence is too thin to do so. Now, hold on! personally I can’t imagine Alec Baldwin wanting to harm this person or the other person who got hit. If things happened the way that has been put forward, I also think Baldwin’s culpability is limited, and to some degree I can understand what happened, and forgive. We need to see what evidence is presented, and if it is different than what we know now, for sure.

However, what this means is, in my opinion, there will be an unsolved mystery. We know that the trigger was pulled! Baldwin did an interview with Stephanopoulos soon after and very meticulously described this scenario:

Quote: transcript link

… she’s [Halyna] standing next to the camera … and she says to me, “Hold the gun lower, go to your right. Okay, right there. All right, do that. Now, show it a little bit lower.” And she’s getting me to position the gun. Everything is in her direction. She’s guiding me through how she wants me to hold the gun … And what’s really urgent is the gun wasn’t meant to be fired in that angle … we kept doing this. So then I said to her, “Now in this scene, I’m going to the gun.” And I said, “Do you want to see that?” And she said, “Yes.” So I take the gun and I start to cock the gun. I’m not going to pull the trigger… She goes, “Well, just cheat it down and tilt it down a little bit like that.” And I cock the gun, I go, “Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that? And then I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off.

For this to happen, there are some remarkable conditions that had to coincide:

-Halyna had to help set up the situation where the gun would be pointed at her

-the gun had to have gotten loaded with live ammunition, somehow, remarkable carelessness by somebody unknown. OR it was intentional, yikes. And we don’t know who loaded the gun? Still? Remarkable.

-the gun has been proven to have been incapable of firing accidentally

-Baldwin says he was not supposed to pull the trigger, and did not. He was mistaken in thinking the gun could fire even though the trigger was not pulled, and is basicallly caught in a lie or failure to remember what really happened, not wanting to believe he pulled it.

-earlier in the transcript Baldwin says “No, no, no, no, no. I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them, never. Never. That was the training that I had“ So to top off the string of perfect circumstances to cause this tragedy, Baldwin violated his own training.

Imagine you are the detective in charge of the investigation. There is no way you can accept that it was all coincidental without good proof it was. I’ll leave that part of it at that though.

The mystery that will possibly never be solved is, why did Baldwin pull the trigger and then misrepresent what happened? I figure it’s one of 3 things:

-he actually did plot to murder one of these 2 people, and carried out his plan, perhaps having it not go as he wanted. Least likely I think.

-he cocked the gun and was unpracticed in how to uncock a gun, which does require pulling the trigger initially. He did so, though, without easing off the trigger at the same time, which would have activated the mechanism that prevents firing. In other words, he was still pulling the trigger fully and let the hammer go, not caring what would happen. He just doesn’t remember it that way, or is lying. Likely scenario

-last possibility, he thought it would be a good laugh if he pretended to shoot someone. I really think this is quite possible, and the reason the mystery will never be solved. He just can’t admit this and face the world.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/alec-baldwin-abc-interview-on-rust-film-shooting-transcript

Quote: unJon

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: darkoz

People rely on professionals all the time

Scenario:. A mother takes her child to the doctor and he prescribed medication. She asks if it's safe to use for her child and the doctor says yes

She gives her kid the medication and it's not safe. He dies

Should the mother be charged with involuntary manslaughter because she's the one who handed her child the medication? Is the argument she should not have taken the doctor's advice and done her own online research so she is guilty of murder?
link to original post

How about the simple act of boarding a plane? None of the passengers can reasonably be expected to check on the safety of the wings/engines/GPS systems/etc….

How about eating in a restaurant? Can you check for salmonella yourself or do you DEPEND on the practices of the restaurateur?

There are just so many things that we depend on other people/systems to keep us safe that we don’t even think of. One misprogrammed traffic light to have all sides green…..
Train coming by but the gate didn’t block traffic….
link to original post

I can’t do any of those things, but I can check if the gun I’m holding is loaded with live rounds. And I do that 100% of the time I’m handed a gun I didn’t load myself.
link to original post

You could also argue that if checking a gun to see if it's loaded is so obvious to everyone why even put it in training of gun usage? Swim training doesn't include telling people to remember they can't breathe underwater. (I assume that's not emphasized).

Good article in the Times on the topic of actors checking or not checking guns. Informative on industry norms, which seem pretty darn relevant.

Might be pay walled: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/arts/alec-baldwin-gun-safety-film.html

Quote: Tanko

The charges are correct. The person holding the weapon is responsible for ensuring the safety of the weapon.

This line alone can not be the complete, entire truth of reasoning in law. Not in the circumstances at hand.
Like it can't be the legal reasoning in circumstances like in the army. Where you follow instructions/orders from higher authority in many a cases and you could not be held responsible for some incidents arising from negligence present in the decision making of the higher authority while you are following said instructions as safely and responsibly as your role in the event implies.

Quote: lilredrooster

_____________


if someone is killed accidentally - because there is a charge on the books of involuntary manslaughter does that mean the person should automatically be charged____?

if I'm driving my car at 35 miles an hour on a pretty quiet street

and a teenager is very upset because she just broke up with her boyfriend and runs right in front of my car

and I hit her and kill her with my car

should I be charged_________?

should I have been all tuned up and prepared for the possibility that someone is going to run right in front of my car_____? - it would have been necessary to slam on the brakes very fast not to have hit her

I don't think I should be charged


.
link to original post

In New Jersey - yes. It happened to me. Well I wasn’t charged with a crime but my insurance paid out a significant amount. It’s my understanding NJ is a no fault state. I guess this means that even if any reasonable person would conclude that an accident is 100% one person’s fault (such as being rear ended at a stop light or something) the damages are still shared 50/50 by the two parties.

I’m sick of reading comments on right wing site’s basically reveling in the fact that this happened to Baldwin as a sort of karma payback for his politics. I don’t like at all how he portrayed Trump but I should hope people could leave that out of this. So many self righteous people saying oh you never point a gun at someone, how could he be so careless? He’s an actor. Would you expect an actor playing a pilot to actually know how to fly a plane? I’m not a gun person myself. In a situation like this I would rely on others in charge to show me what to do. The understanding that live ammo wasn’t even on set, the armorer handing the gun to the director who then gave it to him and said cold gun would leave any reasonable person especially a novice to believe that the gun was safe. Also I believe Baldwin said that the woman who was shot told him to point the gun at the camera which she was behind so she could get a look at the view. Him being a producer doesn’t seem like it should have much bearing. It’s my understanding that big names often get labeled “producer” while not actually doing anything.

Prosecutors these days are seem to care about getting on tv more than serving the public interest. They let violent criminals out while spending so much time trying to nail celebrity’s or politicians.

Actors who are labeled producers often help with raising money for the production or with the recruitment of other actors and crew onto the picture.

Universities usually have a Vice-President for Alumni affairs, whose job is to shmooze alumni and get them to donate money. If someone walking with the VP for Alumni Affairs trips and falls down a staircase on the university campus and is killed and the staircase railing is found to be loose, the VP is not guilty of a negligent manslaughter felony simply because he's a university vice-president and was on the scene.

Baldwin is a violent sociopath. He's been arrested four times in NYC for assault. On one occasion he verbally attacked a photographer, calling him c@#k Skr.

If he gets convicted, the DA could use these incidents to argue for jail time.

Verbally abusing his 11 yr old daughter

Arrested After Parking Dispute

Pins paparazzi against car

Shouts Down Reporter

His wife as born and raised in Boston, but she occasionally affects a fake Spanish accent. After apologizing for 'lying' about her Spanish heritage, she continues using the fake accent. As she did yesterday with the press.

Quote: Tanko

Baldwin is a violent sociopath. He's been arrested four times in NYC for assault. On one occasion he verbally attacked a photographer, calling him c@#k Skr.

If he gets convicted, the DA could use these incidents to argue for jail time.

Verbally abusing his 11 yr old daughter

Arrested After Parking Dispute

Pins paparazzi against car

Shouts Down Reporter

His wife as born and raised in Boston, but she occasionally affects a fake Spanish accent. After apologizing for 'lying' about her Spanish heritage, she continues using the fake accent. As she did yesterday with the press.
link to original post

I don't see how any of those incidents have any bearing on this case or jail time. Or what his wife's accent has to do with it either.

Quote: Tanko

Baldwin is a violent sociopath. He's been arrested four times in NYC for assault. On one occasion he verbally attacked a photographer, calling him c@#k Skr.

If he gets convicted, the DA could use these incidents to argue for jail time.

Verbally abusing his 11 yr old daughter

Arrested After Parking Dispute

Pins paparazzi against car

Shouts Down Reporter

His wife as born and raised in Boston, but she occasionally affects a fake Spanish accent. After apologizing for 'lying' about her Spanish heritage, she continues using the fake accent. As she did yesterday with the press.
link to original post

That's one hell of a spiteful and toxic comment and for what? Just because this guy has certain political views and made some gigs on SNL? He's a great actor and has more of everything that any random hater will ever have.
I don't get Americans' inclination to judge everything and everyone via political prism for no good reason, even art and artists.

Baldwin isn't being charged in the shooting of the guy who lived, even though it was the same bullet. It seems there is no battery without intent, so the DA thinks it is okay to shoot someone unintentionally as long as they live.
The law is an ass.

Quote: odiousgambit

I do have some final thoughts on this, even though the thread is going strong on other matters

-I didn’t know about the FBI damaging the gun. I think it was during testing, in order to see if there was any way - any - to make it fire without pulling the trigger. Original revolver design, as I understand it, allowed this possibility. You might have such a gun go off if you dropped it and the hammer was struck, even though the gun was uncocked. For that to happen with improved design would mean the prohibiting part failed, as the improved version kept the hammer from touching the cartridge primer unless the trigger is pulled. Apparently the testing had them striking the hammer as hard as they could to get it to fire even with this design.

-Now that Baldwin is not being charged with intentionally killing the woman, Halyna Hutchins, we have to assume the evidence is too thin to do so. Now, hold on! personally I can’t imagine Alec Baldwin wanting to harm this person or the other person who got hit. If things happened the way that has been put forward, I also think Baldwin’s culpability is limited, and to some degree I can understand what happened, and forgive. We need to see what evidence is presented, and if it is different than what we know now, for sure.

However, what this means is, in my opinion, there will be an unsolved mystery. We know that the trigger was pulled! Baldwin did an interview with Stephanopoulos soon after and very meticulously described this scenario:

Quote: transcript link

… she’s [Halyna] standing next to the camera … and she says to me, “Hold the gun lower, go to your right. Okay, right there. All right, do that. Now, show it a little bit lower.” And she’s getting me to position the gun. Everything is in her direction. She’s guiding me through how she wants me to hold the gun … And what’s really urgent is the gun wasn’t meant to be fired in that angle … we kept doing this. So then I said to her, “Now in this scene, I’m going to the gun.” And I said, “Do you want to see that?” And she said, “Yes.” So I take the gun and I start to cock the gun. I’m not going to pull the trigger… She goes, “Well, just cheat it down and tilt it down a little bit like that.” And I cock the gun, I go, “Can you see that? Can you see that? Can you see that? And then I let go of the hammer of the gun and the gun goes off. I let go of the hammer of the gun, the gun goes off.

For this to happen, there are some remarkable conditions that had to coincide:

-Halyna had to help set up the situation where the gun would be pointed at her

-the gun had to have gotten loaded with live ammunition, somehow, remarkable carelessness by somebody unknown. OR it was intentional, yikes. And we don’t know who loaded the gun? Still? Remarkable.

-the gun has been proven to have been incapable of firing accidentally

-Baldwin says he was not supposed to pull the trigger, and did not. He was mistaken in thinking the gun could fire even though the trigger was not pulled, and is basicallly caught in a lie or failure to remember what really happened, not wanting to believe he pulled it.

-earlier in the transcript Baldwin says “No, no, no, no, no. I would never point a gun at anyone and pull a trigger at them, never. Never. That was the training that I had“ So to top off the string of perfect circumstances to cause this tragedy, Baldwin violated his own training.

Imagine you are the detective in charge of the investigation. There is no way you can accept that it was all coincidental without good proof it was. I’ll leave that part of it at that though.

The mystery that will possibly never be solved is, why did Baldwin pull the trigger and then misrepresent what happened? I figure it’s one of 3 things:

-he actually did plot to murder one of these 2 people, and carried out his plan, perhaps having it not go as he wanted. Least likely I think.

-he cocked the gun and was unpracticed in how to uncock a gun, which does require pulling the trigger initially. He did so, though, without easing off the trigger at the same time, which would have activated the mechanism that prevents firing. In other words, he was still pulling the trigger fully and let the hammer go, not caring what would happen. He just doesn’t remember it that way, or is lying. Likely scenario

-last possibility, he thought it would be a good laugh if he pretended to shoot someone. I really think this is quite possible, and the reason the mystery will never be solved. He just can’t admit this and face the world.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/alec-baldwin-abc-interview-on-rust-film-shooting-transcript
link to original post

Hold on a second, it just occurred to me - wouldn't the FBI have a video evidence of whether he pulled the trigger or not and basically of the entire string of events if the camera was on during the setup for the rehearsal as Hutchins was directing Baldwin and framing for the shot?

As suspiciously coincidental as it all may seem I wouldn't overrule a series of unfortunate events a priori, I've seen stranger things happen in reality than in fiction.
Of course it is the most likely scenario that Baldwin is either lying or misremembering not pulling the trigger.

Some people are habitual liars and can't stop lying, and won't hesitate to make others lie. Am I describing news?

Quote: darkoz

(massively clipped)
I don't understand why you keep insisting the gun should have been empty. They were about to shoot a scene where the gun was supposed to loaded and fired

I have to apologize about being so absent lately. I blame significant new business requirements (I guess I'm not as retired as I thought).

DO, I am not insisting the gun is empty. I am insisting that the chamber be cleared. For a revolver, ensure that the chamber under the hammer is empty. Very simple to do, even an actor could do it. Some commenter (maybe DO, maybe someone else, it's 3am and I'm bushed) said, paraphrasing, that they weren't going to fire because it was just a rehearsal. But Alec pulled the trigger anyway. But if they were intentionally shooting a scene where the gun was to be used, then why did the A/D say it was a 'cold gun'? Can't have it both ways. Regardless, basic firearm safety requires everyone who handles a weapon determine for themselves the status of the weapon--no exceptions.

Quote: darkoz

Why was there a live round in the gun is the question. We wouldn't be here if Alec Baldwin had accidentally fired a blank.

No, I believe the pertinent question is "Why was Alec Baldwin unaware that his weapon was ready to fire a live round? We wouldn't be here if he had only checked his weapon." But perhaps we are at an endpoint on this.

I do appreciate the civil nature of this discussion, DO.
I also appreciate UnJon for elaborating on my post and carrying some of the load, unrequested, since I was unavoidably detained from this thread.
There are still three pages of posts, so I suspect I am far behind the active front of this discussion, so thank you for reading. link to original post

Quote: rxwine

(clipped)

Quote: AxelWolf

. Obviously, there's always the chance that multiple people just go through the motions and assume everything is safe.
link to original post

I've seen this happen when there are multiple checks. It's fortunately rare when multiple people skip a check at the same time. (oh, I know this other person also does it everyday so he'll catch anything wrong if I miss it today) But if you're dealing with a potentially dangerous event, it can be a disaster if everyone skips a check at the same time. Wouldn't be surprised if that's a cause of some really bad events much bigger than a single shooting.
link to original post

There is a guy on YouTube who, as a professional airline pilot, does an expert look into various airline disasters and near-disasters. He recently did one where bright red pitot tube covers (three of them)were installed on a parked aircraft, and four different people, including the pilot, did an exterior check which should have caught the problem, but didn't. Plane took off, the fly-by-wire system lost its mind because it sensed zero airspeed, and the pilots almost lost the plane.

Lesson: you cannot have too many people checking on critical safety systems. Thus, yes, Alec should have checked his weapon.

Someone asked how can an actor check other dangerous props/stunts. my example is Christopher Walken in the music video "Weapon of Choice", where he dives over a barrier into the atrium of a hotel and flies around. I am virtually certain they did a couple of 'lifts' and 'suspends' to ensure his harness worked, the wires were run correctly, and the support structure worked. I know if I were Walken, I would insist on it.

Looking into it further, I stand corrected in one matter: the blanks used in the movies are not the same thing as an image I showed, which are a different type, completely inert. Blanks used in the movies do fire in order to simulate the real thing, and typically wadding is ejected. These blanks would have primers on the cartridge, and may look pretty much the same as real cartridges if you opened the revolver and just looked at the cylinder end.

In the matter of safety on set, I would say the best practice would be to completely remove blanks also in scenes where the gun is not to be fired.

As for just making sure the cartridge is not under the hammer, that is problematic as the cylinder keeps rotating every time you even begin to cock it. Best practice has to be to remove them all.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59006905

Quote: rawtuff

[(Clipped to relevant part)

Hold on a second, it just occurred to me - wouldn't the FBI have a video evidence of whether he pulled the trigger or not and basically of the entire string of events if the camera was on during the setup for the rehearsal as Hutchins was directing Baldwin and framing for the shot?

(more clip)
link to original post

Depends on the camera. For a camera exposing physical film, the camera might have the viewfinder system (auto focus, or auto-aperture) up and running, but the film spools not running, so that the cinemaphotographer can watch the rehearsal scene play out in the viewfinder, but without wasting physical film. In this case, there would be no record of the actions.

For a video camera, the same systems would be up and running, but the video being read off the CCDs would only be sent to the viewfinder/screen, but not recorded in the memory chips. Same result--no video evidence.

So, yes the camera is 'on', but is not recording. The only hope is other people are recording the scene on their phones, which may be prohibited by contract (I would guess yes).

Final bit on the schadenfreude about Alec being in hot water. It is not because of the politics of the man, it is because he is an arrogant bully who is coddled by a supine press and spineless legal system. I would cheer his conviction based solely on how he treated his own flesh and blood daughter. I've never seen his SNL skits, nor really read up on his politics. But I know by his actions that he believes that he can get away with criminal behavior like assault because he is not one of the little people.

I am saddened by the death of the cinematographer and the wounding of the director. They are victims of the unsafe practices that obtained on the set. They were killed and injured ultimately by the actions of the man holding the weapon, who refuses to admit any guilt, who in the interview posted earlier actually tries to fob off his culpability by blaming the actions of the cinematographer for his negligent handling of a working weapon.

As for the actions of Hillary 'Hillaria' Baldwin, trying to pass as a Spaniard and getting caught was worthy of endless mocking. But trying to continue the farce after she admitted her blue-blood Boston upbringing justifies turning up the snark dial to '11'. But everyone needs a hobby, I guess, so I guess 'Hillaria' will keep it up.

Almost 4am. I'm hitting the sack.

Quote: BillHasRetired

Quote: darkoz

(massively clipped)
I don't understand why you keep insisting the gun should have been empty. They were about to shoot a scene where the gun was supposed to loaded and fired

I have to apologize about being so absent lately. I blame significant new business requirements (I guess I'm not as retired as I thought).

DO, I am not insisting the gun is empty. I am insisting that the chamber be cleared. For a revolver, ensure that the chamber under the hammer is empty. Very simple to do, even an actor could do it. Some commenter (maybe DO, maybe someone else, it's 3am and I'm bushed) said, paraphrasing, that they weren't going to fire because it was just a rehearsal. But Alec pulled the trigger anyway. But if they were intentionally shooting a scene where the gun was to be used, then why did the A/D say it was a 'cold gun'? Can't have it both ways. Regardless, basic firearm safety requires everyone who handles a weapon determine for themselves the status of the weapon--no exceptions.

Quote: darkoz

Why was there a live round in the gun is the question. We wouldn't be here if Alec Baldwin had accidentally fired a blank.

No, I believe the pertinent question is "Why was Alec Baldwin unaware that his weapon was ready to fire a live round? We wouldn't be here if he had only checked his weapon." But perhaps we are at an endpoint on this.

I do appreciate the civil nature of this discussion, DO.
I also appreciate UnJon for elaborating on my post and carrying some of the load, unrequested, since I was unavoidably detained from this thread.
There are still three pages of posts, so I suspect I am far behind the active front of this discussion, so thank you for reading. link to original post

link to original post

Get some sleep Bill. . it's a pleasure to have a peaceful adversarial conversation as well.

I think the problem as I see it is the difference between a "cold gun" to the public understanding and film terms used by film professional crew

Vanity Fair explains it best below



As pointed out by Odious Gambit a few posts above blanks used in production have to actually fire and look the same as live rounds inside the gun

The AD is supposed to check for obstructions in the gun that might be propelled by a bullet (that's what actually killed Brandon Lee, not the blank he fired but a live bullet nestled in the firing tube which was propelled when struck by the blank) and that the gun is safe by being filled with blanks

The AD didn't do that properly and pled guilty.

So if Alec looked inside the gun which was loaded with a real looking blank, how could he have known except if he physically removed the bullet and inspected it which for obvious reasons you wouldn't want (an actor now inspecting and reloading on his own).

You mentioned the case of the music video with Christopher Walken and how he wouldn't do the shot without professional crew checking harnesses etc. Isn't that what the defense has been? That Alec was relying on the professionals to verify everything was safe? Chris Walken certainly didn't bounce up and down on each wire checking for tensile strength and checking connection etc. If anything a non-professional could undermine the work of the trained pro by accidentally disengaging a safety protocol.

Finally as far as cheering a guilty verdict because he treated his daughter lousy, I get it. I cheered OJ went to jail because I felt he got away with murder. But hoping someone goes to jail because they are lousy parents seems a bit pushing it IMHO.

Looking forward to your response.

I've heard before the criticism that Baldwin is trying to blame the victim, saying she told him to point the gun in her direction.

To me it seems he was only telling what happened. If it happened that way, then it happened that way. If he is lying, why is no one calling him out on that particular detail?

And, again, what a circumstance! If true, she even had him fiddling with pulling the hammer back more than once

Quote: odiousgambit

I've heard before the criticism that Baldwin is trying to blame the victim, saying she told him to point the gun in her direction.

To me it seems he was only telling what happened. If it happened that way, then it happened that way. If he is lying, why is no one calling him out on that particular detail?

And, again, what a circumstance! If true, she even had him fiddling with pulling the hammer back more than once
link to original post

I agree with you. That criticism is ridiculous.

Of course that's what happened.

She was the cinematographer rehearsing the shot with him. She wanted to see how the gun would photograph in the shot which was to be him pointing the gun at the camera and shooting it

I guess I might as well link this. You don't really need real guns (or even real robots).

https://youtu.be/zIdqiwHsuI8?t=2

(btw, I really hate when they show robots being abused; that's really not going to play well in the future)

That's some serious hilarity!

The gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds, not blanks. Blanks contain powder, but the projectile is replaced with wadding. They go bang, but don’t fire a bullet. A dummy round is a normal cartridge with a real bullet, but does not contain powder so it can’t fire.

When a loaded revolver is viewed from the front, the bullet tips in the cylinder show, so dummy rounds are used for realism.



Now if a dummy round looks exactly like a live round how can it be checked? Turns out that insdead of filling the case with powder, they put a BB in there. You shake the cartridge. If it rattles it’s safe.

So the only way Baldwin could have checked the weapon was to unload the rounds onto a table, shake each one and reload the gun. That’s what I would have done, but I’m not sure you want actors doing that.

This is a quintessential case for a jury—determine what a reasonable person would do. They may very well think that the two situations below are distinguishable or the same.

Would a reasonable person give their child medicine that was proscribed by a licensed medical doctor and handed to them by a licensed pharmacist?

Would a reasonable person take a real gun from a professional licensed armorer, point the real gun at their child and pull the trigger without checking if there were real bullets in it?

I know these aren’t literally the questions in this case but you get the idea. These are the kinds of questions that are tailor made for a jury of your peers. The line drawing, squishy questions about life and the expectations of the social construct we live in. What would a reasonable person do? Would this action or that action be reckless? Whether he gets convicted or acquitted will depend a lot on the quality of the prosecutor and his lawyer.

Jury selection will be interesting. Will they battle over how many gun owners to put in the box?

Should the defense pounce on the fact that there is no charge for shooting the director (a telling point), or would the prosecutor simply shrug and add some sort of reckless endangerment charge on top of the manslaughter (not exactly helpful to the defense).

Normally this would end quickly in a plea deal. But would Baldwin accept any deal where he has to plead guilty? He certainly has the money to fight it in court, but it will obviously be an OJ level media circus, complete with various political overtones.

Should he take the stand?

So the case ends. Not with a bang but a whimper.

New Mexico prosecutors will dismiss involuntary manslaughter claims against actor Baldwin and armorer Gutierrez-Reed without prejudice. While this means charges may still be brought in the future, it sure seems unlikely given that they're making this move after their year long investigation has turned into a clown show before the media circus trial even gets started.

Full Story at Deadline

The news here says his charges are dropped but not hers, although there seems to be some confusion.

The film's armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed is still facing charges.