In the movie I worked on where real guns were used as props the armorer had strict rules and a safety protocol he went through on each gun for each scene. Before the scene he went through his check list to check every aspect of the gun for safety and to make sure it’s loaded with the correct dummy rounds. Once he was finished with his check list he announced to the set that the gun was safe or “Cold” then handed it to the actor. If the actor did ANYTHING with the gun other than what is required in the scene, such as check it himself, then the armorer would have to take the gun back and start his check list all over again. It’s the armorer’s responsibility 100% on a film set. Another note regarding this case is that even if Baldwin had checked the gun he would not have been readily able to tell the difference between the dummy rounds and the rogue live round. Whoever allowed the rogue live rounds to enter the set and onto the armorers cart is the real culprit.
100%. Even if it was a random person or 'saboteur' sprinkling live rounds all over Hannah's cart, it was still her responsibility to check each bullet as she was putting them into the gun... and as an armourer she should have been able to tell which ones were which! Another thing people get wrong about this is that Baldwin being given producer credits means he hired the crew. The person who hired and oversaw the crew, including hannah, was Gabriella Pickle, the line producer.
It's even more messed up that there was a 2nd person who watched the armorer check the gun and knew she did a half assed check. Then let it go without a word and deemed it cold anyway.
@@windywednesday4166 even if he was responsible for hiring her, you hire professionals precisely for the reason to have there someone who understands the thing when you don't. If he had no idea about guns, what was he supposed to do? Hire another professional to check on this professional? And a third one to control the second one? And so on and on? That's against the basic concept of good faith.
@carnifaxx Well, that's pretty disingenuous. For one thing, Alec Baldwin's father was the coach of the Massapequa High School Rifle Team for 20 years. He's also been in almost a hundred movies, 20 of which had guns and presumably had armourers. And that doesn't even count the television shows he's done that had firearms in them. I'm not saying that makes him an expert, but I'm not getting my panties in a twist trying to make out he's as pure as the driven snow and couldn't possibly have known what was happening around him or how anything worked. It seems like there's a number of people that could have and should have spoken up and said something, and maybe he's one of them. That's what makes this a tragedy. Dumb stuff happens.
@carnifaxx ... also, that's exactly what you do. You have built-in redundancies, so if one system fails, the next one will catch it. That's why we don't have dumb stuff like this, and worse, happen every day.
Yes and no. It’s absurd to blame Alec Baldwin on a movie set where a fire arm safety officer checks the guns. Should he have double checked the gun he was handling? Yes. But, should he be guilty of involuntary manslaughter? No
@@joehenry9546 guilty yes because the gun went off in his hand there is no way to divorce the death of Helena Hutchins from Alec Baldwin pulling the trigger what would have spared him any blame would have been had he demanded the armorer Hannah Reid to return to inspect the firearm instead he went with James home handing him the firearm and declaring it a cold gun he is responsible 100% because the gun went off in his hand and all guns are always loaded and everybody is responsible for safety with guns everyone ignorance and denial of accountability will not make it any more pristine or germaine for him.
On the first day of trial when the judge was deciding whether Alec’s producer role would be entered in trial, she READ his contract in court. He had no hiring, firing or budgetary role. He was a producer in name only in order to get a percent of the sales since his pay was low. That’s why the judge decided his role as “producer” was irrelevant to the case. There were 6 other “real” producers each in charge of hiring decisions for their sections. The line producer was in charge of hiring and supervising the armorer. That was who hired and supervised Hannah. Also, Alec arrived on set TWO days before the shooting so how much interaction could he have had with the crew. They had been shooting for weeks before he showed up.
I did not know that Baldwin had no “ power” on the movie. He sure acted like he did. Telling the armorer how to do her job. I’m sure that’s why they handed it to Ms. Gutierrez , they all thought she’s young , inexperienced, we can push her around . Btw 7 mil for the entire movie , that really is a shoestring budget
That's good to know. My only argument to his guilt was that he was the producer and that he knew she had been negligent, incompetent and dangerous in the past, but still kept her on the job. As for the gun being loaded though, I think it would be unfair to expect him to be responsible for that. It was the armorer's job and it wouldn't be possible for him to check the gun each and every single time he had it. It was a single shot, hate loaded revolver. He would have had to unload each bullet one by one, check them one by one and then reload them one by one each and every single time. As an actor though, he is not responsible for that and I always thought it was insane that people thought he was. I'm convinced 100% that the Vast majority of those people only believed that, because they hate him. If it was someone they didn't hate, they would be arguing for his innocence. I actually despise Baldwin, but I can't find any justification to make him legally responsible. I tried to argue that he was the producer and he knew that the armorer was unsafe, but other people noted that he didn't have any power that a producer normally has under his contract. He had no authority to fire her.
Dr Grande 100 percent right again. I don't think Alec has criminal liability, especially with the withheld evidence. I do believe he and the production have a substantial civil liability. I work in a shipping hub, if someone makes the mistake of starting a belt with an individual on it, and that individual dies, the person who started the belt will not be arrested. They will be fired, and they and the company will have civil liability, but no one is going to prison. This has literally happened.
He's 100% wrong. Baldwin definitely is guilty of criminal liability. You just don't know that because you don't know the criteria and film industry protocol.
The thing is that people have been held criminally liable in similar situations where they were handed a gun that was supposedly empty and they shot someone dead accidentally. The trial got thrown out due to incompetence on the prosecution side, not an obvious lack of criminal liability. His comparison to other dangerous depictions in movies was not very good. Prop guns can still be working, lethal weapons. Baldwins laxadasical approach to firearms were mirrored in the staff he surrounded himself with. I am pretty sure if this happened to any regular person, they would be in jail
@protoman1214 Yes and no. My understanding is that a movie set is different. They have an armourer for a reason. What I've been told is that the actors are absolutely not allowed to open the gun and check it or do anything with it except what they're directed to do. What they are allowed to do is have the armourer check it in front of them. I drive for a living and I'm not expected to nor am I allowed to open up the engine compartment and start fiddling with my rig... although I am expected to report any issues or concerns I have.
@@windywednesday4166 You're wrong. The person that ultimately fires the weapon is responsible for checking to make sure it isn't loaded with anything other than blanks and NOT pointing it directly at anyone on the set as per film industry protocol. You people don't know what you're talking about.
@windywednesday4166 I don't understand this "movie set is different" argument..... firearm safety is not written in stone as law for anyone outside movie sets either... it's implied as a responsibility for anyone handling a firearm, period. Show me the laws saying a civilian must follow the rules of firearm safety.... hint, they don't exist.... so a movie set is different compared to what exactly? I don't care that they have an onset armorer. We had armorers in the military, they made sure the firearms functioned and were kept in good working order. They did not make sure everyone was safe. Itcan be similar on set as well. There are people who check the firearm besides armorers to make sure it's clear. They should jave jave had more armorers on this set but they didnt because of money. On set staff is usually given fire arm safety classes. On this set, producers quite literally decided to bypassed these classes because they didn't have the time for it.... Many people who worked on other sets have accounts of following the rules of gun safety despite their position, even actors checking their own firearms. Keanu Reeves is a premier example. And your comparison to your job as a driver and not a mechanic is nonsensical. A better comparison would be allowing someone who can't drive or has not demonstrated an ability to drive the rig safely to drive for your company.... are you telling me if a driver runs a red light and kills a family, he has no expectation of culpability because he isn't the mechanic?
Before this I just assumed that all movie guns were props built for the film. It still amazes me that they use a real weapon. Especially these days when everything from Gollum to entire armies and more are computer generated, I just figured all of the realism was added in post production to a toy prop. Other than a security guard, I can see no reason to ever have a real weapon on set, much less real ammo. 🔫🎥
ive dabbled in video stuff before, its amazing how hard it is to get things looking right. Im from the UK, so never held a gun. Im imagining theres a hell of a lot of force when pulling a trigger, this is 'jerking' the hand back, i think its called recoil. Then theres muzzle flash and smoke. Unless they made a gun which could give that violent recoil action then its gonna look fake. So now you gotta fins a company to custom make these niche weapons, probably cost a fortune, then on top of that special fx for the sound and the muzzle flash, smoke... Already your looking at 5 figures in post production. Im gathering guns are cheap, couple hundred bucks, plus the special cartridge, so costs are way down using real guns.
It's not a problem when people do their jobs. You'd be surprised just how often real guns are used on sets, but how very few accidents there are. Then when a one in a million accidents happen (from one person's negligence), people want to blame the weapon and ban guns on set instead of just holding the people responsible that used them recklessly.
This is such a bizarre story. How did Troy Treske get the box of ammo that he "thought might be related to the case"? Why did he wait until the trial of Hannah to turn over the ammo to authorities? (Teske is a friend of Hannah's father, by the way.)
Right... I had a hard time following that too! I understand that he was in court to be a witness for the defendant. Then the defense decided not to call him. Why would they have done that if his information would have helped Hannah?
This was not something that first came to their attention at the last minute, or after Hannah's trial. The prosecutor knew about this batch of ammo & had a pic of a few rounds early on. She says she told the lead investigator to try to figure out how to get it to NM. The lead investigator chose not to do so and in court suggested that she may have asked him to ship them to her in the mail (not a proper way to handle evidence). When law inforcement sent off rounds to be tested by the FBI, they sent samples from Seth Kenny /PDQ prop house that were supposed to be some he had from that batch of rounds (the rounds he had from this batch is why they were possibly tied to the case). When Troy brought them in after 2 years of waiting for them to be collected, they buried them under a separate case number. That's the story that came out under oath anyhow.
Troy got the box of ammo from Hannah’s father. Hannah’s father and Seth both got their ammo from a man called Sam. Sam gave them lives and dummies. Hannah’s dad gave her some of those bullets to bring to the set and gave some to Trey to store for him. Hannah and Seth both brought those bullets to the set. A bullet similar to one of those lives killed Helena. Hannah’s defense didn’t want the bullets cause it would hurt their case by showing she had access to the type of live bullets that killed Helena. They were trying to argue she didn’t bring the bullets on set and had never even seen such a bullet before. Alec’s defense wanted the bullets because they’re trying to prove that either Seth or Hannah brought live bullets to the set and therefore Alec isn’t guilty because he couldn’t have anticipated that there were live bullets there. They’re arguing that the real culprit is the one who brought the bullets not the one who pulled the trigger.
@@lindsayo9702 Oh, right... it makes my head hurt to remember. That was such a cringe-worthy argument. Hannah "...it's not like you have to Rattle every single one" thinks that if she pulls the bullets from a box marked 'safe to use' then she had no responsibility to check them before she put them in a gun. I think it's obvious where the real dummy was.
@@windywednesday4166 There were allegations of an individual who had a grudge against the firearm prop company over safety/employment etc, and they tried to "catch out" (i.e. screw over) the prop company by sneaking live rounds onto the set... they were NOT supposed to actually get into a gun being used, the idea was to reveal to the executives etc that the company was so incompetent live rounds had made it in... if true, that individual is nearly entirely responsible for this disastrous chain of events
The firewall of safety is not with the actor. Looking at the thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of movies made with the use of movie set firearms, it is evident that not every actor has the opportunity to check for prop integrity, nor would know what to look for even if required to do so. And where would it end? Actors required to check vehicle safety? Aircraft? Boats? Buildings? Parachutes? Food? Furniture? No, the system requires a trained, qualified technician as a go-between, someone to sign off on the safety and integrity of props. In "Rust" there was failure, certainly, but put the blame where it belongs.
@@jimbonaterthey already settled the civil lawsuit and was held responsible along with the other producers. This should never have gone to trial. Instead they need to look at Seth Kenny for sabotaging the set
@@jimbonater but he was a producer in good faith that he hired a professional to deal with the exact issue. If he didn't or it wasn't a professional, then it's his fault, but what else should he do?
I have to agree the prosecuter messed up the case. But I think you are far too generous to Alec. First of all: he lied about not pulling the trigger. He was the producer after all, with the final responsibility of everything that was going on at the set. There were testimonies people were shooting with real bullets during the breaks. That the working conditions were unbearable. That safety procedures were compromised, because measures around 'the bug' at that time. He also immediately went to the press to throw the armorer under the bus. Last of all, Alec is very vocal about gun safety and likes to lecture everyone how guns are a problem in the USA.
Looks like bedtime is postponed by 16 minutes tonight! I’ve been waiting for your take on this. Thank you, Dr. Grande, I always appreciate your insight.
We'll probably never know because Hanna refused to say, but I think she took it from her father's collection and was showing off on set. I think she wasn't paying attention, and didn't keep it separate. Maybe she was drinking/doing drugs and shoved it in her pocket, and forgot. I think that's why she refused to say anything, she didn't want it to be traced back to her (step) father in any way.
@@_Kittensworth So you're going with the framing of throwing the armorer under the bus. If she was such an irresponsible person Alec as the producer should have taken measures.
A bunch of people, including the producer, didn't do their jobs. The judge telegraphed her dismissal when she wouldn't let them acknowledge his role as producer.
@@_Kittensworth - We should not forget what's-her-name, the prop manager, who admitted in her testimony to have picked up, and then disposed of, several rounds from that weapons cart that was used in the scene. Why did she do that? To hide something?
I agree. Baldwin was not responsible for the gun having a live round in it. As for pointing it at a person- he was going to be doing that in a scene with another actor, wasn't he? He was rehearsing a scene that must have been a gun battle with someone else. That actor would have been the victim and again Baldwin would not have been to blame although I'm sure he would feel terrible about it for the rest of his life.
I think the argument would be that he was in some way responsible because he was the producer, so he was the one in charge and hired young, and likely unqualified armorer to save money, and was also reported to have not been paying attention in the weapons training (multiple people said he was on his phone throughout), and IIRC also did not show up for a couple.
As a producer, I think he is somewhat liable, but not as an actor. As a producer, he was responsible for hiring competent people and making sure safety standards were upheld. I guess he couldn’t legally be held liable as a producer for some reason, though.
He was A producer, not The producer. Just like a magazine has lots of editors for certain tasks, there is still only one Editor. Any task can get you credit as a producer but you are not the producer of the film
As a producer he would be held liable through fines and wrongful death suits filed by the family. But yeah, as a producer he definitely has some share of blame. Hiring an AP with a known dangerous history with prop guns in previous productions (including a case where a crewmember had permanent hearing loss from him playing with blanks), and cutting corners by making the Armourer double as a props manager (when its worst case scenarios like this that are the exact reason why they are separate jobs for separate people). If there is enough concerns that there were multiple walk outs by crew only days into filming, your production is a recipe for disaster.
@@Thommy2n Iirc, there were at least nine producers on that film. Most of them 'producers' in name only. It's done for a variety of reasons one of which is so an actor can take a very low pay for acting and make money on the back end. Alec was a producer in name only. The person who hired and oversaw Hannah Gutierrez Reed (and the rest of the crew) was the line producer Gabriella Pickle.
@@windywednesday4166wow. That makes it even weirder that Baldwin was charged, and not the parties that were actually responsible for the disaster ie those that hired/supervised/overworked the armourer.
I heard that they had been using refurbished bullets/dummies on the set to save money and that there had been some issue with them not being properly marked. In other words there were live bullets marked as dummy bullets. The box of bullets the Prosecutor received was supposedly part of the same lot or group the set bullets came from. A closer examination might've been in order but the Prosecutor said she never gave the Defense a copy of the final report because she didn't have another copy. (Seriously, she said that.) At any rate, if a mis-marked bullet had been the culprit, then the entire set was a Russian Roulette Wheel.
Right?! Tbf, my understanding is that all dummies are refurbished bullets. They take the cap off and remove the gunpowder... then they either put a bebee in the case so it will rattle when shaken, or they drill a hole in the side so you can see it is empty of gunpowder. If Hannah was doing that on set and not paying attention, which she clearly wasn't, then yes, it was just a matter of time. 😮
You can make dummy rounds without using gun powder or live ammo. During the trial they kept saying the live rounds were starline brass with nickle (or silver in color) primers. I cannot remember who it was who pointed it out, but Starline only makes movie rounds (dummys), not live rounds. So, that suggests someone reloaded dummys to make the live rounds. This makes the half a dozen live rounds that were on the set much more likely to be thought to be dummy rounds. If someone was to glance at the brass it would be recognised that it was Starline rounds by the markings (a star and a line then another star according to the testimony of the woman who collected evidence for law enforcement). Starline is made specifically as props, so that would give a (false, apparently) sense of security. This all adds to the questions about the origins of live rounds they found on set.
@@MrsAshcraft Makes you wonder who is really responsible. There could very well be a person that intentionally loaded a live round and since Baldwin and his armorer are the one's being blamed, nobody is looking for the person that loaded a dummy cartridge with a live primer and power. It could have been intentional and the person truly responsible will never be caught.
It's pretty rare that I disagree with your analysis but this is one such case. I agree that dismissal with prejudice is the correct sanction for prosecutorial misconduct. But I disagree with Baldwin's level of negligence and his guilt in the absence of prosecutorial misconduct. There is New Mexico Supreme Court precedent that a good faith belief that a gun is unloaded is still manslaughter. I believe that people who use guns for a living as Baldwin was as a producer and had been doing for many years as an actor have an even higher duty to be safe than a general member of the public. The fact that he did not check the gun himself is inexcusable.
Wrong. You are mistaken because you are confusing a movie set with real life. If you are handling a gun in real life of course there is a presumption it is loaded and dangerous but on a movie set the presumption is different. Live rounds are banned from movie sets. 2nd amendment people always make this argument because they don't accept that movie sets are different. Movie sets are different from real life! Accept that! In real life there are no dummy rounds or blanks only deadly live ammo so of course you have to hold people to a higher standard than a movie set where deadly ammo is banned.
@@almac9203 Without a doubt. The armorer was the sole person responsible for what kind of bullet was loaded in the gun. It was not Alec's job to verify and it wouldn't have been feasible for him to do so. It was a Gate loaded single action revolver. He would have had to unload each bullet one by one, check each bullet one by one and then reload each bullet one by one... every single time he picked up the gun. It just wouldn't have been possible and it's unfair to expect him to do that. (Someone also said that the live bullet was somehow loaded into a casing that was from a blank and not from a company that produces live ammo. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, it could mean that there is another person responsible that intentionally loaded a blank round to cause a shooting on set).
I agree with you. It was Alex who pointed it at someone and fired it. Even if it was very slim odds he should have checked it before doing this - it was incredibly careless and reckless.
Hopefully, the Rust karma of incompetence has now run its course. I don't think Baldwin was culpable as an actor, but probably was ethically challenged as a producer. As armorer, Gutierrez was uninterested and uninvested in doing her job, which was to ensure the safety of the cast and crew. All she wanted was a credit for her CV. I was so shocked to see video of her shrugging and walking away from potentially dangerous situations instead of taking control. She does deserve some prison time. It's not everybody else's job to make sure Hannah does not do stupid stuff, though clearly she thinks so.
On the first day of trial when the judge was deciding whether Alec’s producer role would be entered in trial, she READ his contract in court. He had no hiring, firing or budgetary role. He was a producer in name only in order to get a percent of the sales since his pay was low. That’s why the judge decided his role as “producer” was irrelevant to the case. There were 6 other “real” producers each in charge of hiring decisions for their sections. The line producer was in charge of hiring and supervising the armorer. That was who hired and supervised Hannah.
He had no hiring or budgetary power he was a producer in name only so he could get more money for working on the project as a big name and seasoned actor. I don;t even like Alec Balwin but he had 0 responsibility in this case.
They're used all the time, but rarely ever cause any injuries or deaths. Of all the 100s of thousands of real guns used in Hollywood, only a couple in history have cause a death.
What happened with Alec was he Is politically active and opinionated and in our political environment some folks don’t like this quality so some wanted to believe the worst about him in the Rust case. The truth is this was always a civil law case.
I agree. I despise the man, but that don't mean he should be held accountable for crimes he did not commit and for a death that he was not responsible for causing. (As in the armorer was responsible for making certain the gun was not loaded). However, he was the armorer's boss and he knew she was not only inexperienced, but he knew she had already proved herself to be incompetent and dangerous before the shooting happened. He continued to use her as his armorer though and I think (at the very least) it makes him morally and civilly responsible. I think people are ignorant on how it just wasn't feasible for him to clear the gun each and every time he handled it. It was a gated single actin revolver and he would have had to unload each and every single round, one at a time and then reload each round one at a time each and every single time. It's just ridiculous to expect that from him (or any actor). He wasn't just the actor though, but also the director (and the boss of the armorer).
@@kazekamiha Yeah, I've heard that and tried to verify it. I haven't seen any absolute proof of that myself (the actual contract), but there are a lot of sources repeating that. Whether true or not, I would have expected it to be an absolute provable fact, but it's been hard to find anything more than hearsay, except for the words of Baldwin himself. I think he might be telling the truth on that, because it was a part of his trial and also the lawsuit he filed against the armorer.... but I couldn't find anything that had ever been released publicly. The contract also allegedly made certain also that he was not legally responsible, which is standard practice. (...because it can't be his job or the job of the actors. That's why they have an armorer). If you do get the chance, I hope you get to find the Truth. That should be a simple thing in the age of information... but somehow it's become even more difficult.
Nicolas Cage had a great take on this issue. He said something like, “Stuntmen sometimes have to be actors, and actors sometimes have to be stuntmen. If you’re doing a scene on a motorcycle, you need to know about that motorcycle. If you’re doing a scene with a gun, you need to know about that gun”. I’m paraphrasing, but damn that makes a lot of sense.
Knowing about a gun isn't going to stop a life bullet from coming out of it when you pull the trigger though. He didn't check for live ammo, because it wasn't his job... and doing so wouldn't have been feasible. He would have to unload each round individually, check each round individually and then reload each round individually, because the gun was a gated single action revolver.
@@deucedeuce1572 it’s just really hard to wrap my brain around the fact that the person that pulled the trigger was not held responsible for the shooting. It’s very possible the fact that he lied about pulling the trigger sways my opinion, and that keeps me from thinking rationally, but I still feel like justice was not served in this case.
Someone claimed that the brass case of the "live round" was actually a casing that's only used for dummy bullets and that that for it to be loaded, a person would have had to hand load it. It seems that if that's true, there may be an actual killer that intentionally loaded a dummy with live ammo/primer to cause an accidental shooting and/or have someone killed (3rd degree murder at least). With the Baldwin case and the case against his armorer, it seems like they're not investigating anymore to see if someone else may be responsible... so we may never know. That would be a MASSIVE piece of evidence in both the vases against Baldwin and the armorer. It could mean that she DID check the ammo to make sure it wasn't live, but then the dummy round fired anyways, despite being a verified "dummy".
@@peggyh4805 TBH, I get a kick out of these politicized witch trials. It's funny seeing ya'll boohoo over weak cases that were never gonna go anywhere.
@@moshebenamram6020 he probably didn't even remember. It was an inconsequential movement in the moment. By pointing out that he lied about firing the gun- are you genuinely suggesting that he was being intentionally duplicitous to cover up his crime? In retrospect he should have double checked, but he shouldn't have to. No one in his position normally does. It's a movie- real bullets shouldn't have been an option. Baldwin is a victim too.
@@T.A.S-t1e This notion that commonly held gun safety means nothing on a movie set is ridiculous. Baldwin was also a producer on this film, and should have some level of accountability.
@@seangalvin4582I’ve never accidentally fired a gun, or handled a firearm in a matter where it could go off accidentally. if youve accidentally fired a gun you probably shouldn’t touch a gun ever again
As the defense lawyer Andrew Branca stated after the Rittenhouse trial, and I'm paraphrasing heavily from memory alone: "There need to be skin in the game for the prosecution so they cannot go after people based on personal bias, e.g., politically motivated cases like with Rittenhouse where all the evidence pointed towards his innocence, but they went after him anyway. There need to be substantial personal consequences for the prosecution if they lose a case without providing any good evidence; there needs to be skin in the game." He called this Kyle's Law, and the fact that there isn't something like this already after all these years is beyond any rational man to understand.
@@itsallgoodman4108 It's not Trumpers. It's just biased people that hate Baldwin. That's a LOT of people from all backgrounds. He has seemingly made it his life goal to be hated by as many people as possible. I even think he's a POS, but I just know that doesn't make him guilty. i try to not be a hypocrite and to not let my emotions have control over my morals and values. “He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.”-Thomas Paine
I agree with your analysis. Calling the prosecution "malicious" puts a label on a vague feeling I had, and I agree that Baldwin is unlikely to be able to put this behind him. I know I wouldn't.
Well, the basics are that it is a gun and he was pointing it at the people sitting next to the camera. It certainly would have been cautionary of him to insist that the gun be checked in front of him so he could see for himself. 😢
That was the defence's argument, that he had no reason to believe there was live ammo loaded in the gun, and he had no responsibility to check it as that was the armourer's and AD's responsibility.
The video shown in court of Alec Baldwin using his gun as a pointer to indicate where the cameraman should be positioned establishes misuse of a firearm, and negligence.
@@Mr.MisconductIt is not his responsibility. The armorer is responsible for that on a set. The armorer is the person responsible for all weapons on a set.
There was some really strange behaviour from the prosecutor and lead investigator. They both clearly know about these extra bullets being turned in, and their responsibilities to turn over all evidence to the defence, why they would log it under a different case number it's really strange. Then it became clear the prosecutor was lying on the witness stand, she lied about the reason for the other attorney resigning so quickly and easily. It was all very strange.
Another spin from prosecutor……how many others SPINS were there…… so quickly she made up a story about the resignation by second prosecutor. And it was not TRUTHFUL
I live in the Glendale, Scottsdale, Phoenix Arizona area. *And prosecutors for years have gotten big (and perhaps used to) withholding evidence from Defense attorneys. The truth of the matter is... if you`re dealing with the lawyer of a drug dealer, most judges dont give a shit.* However... *there is a huge difference withholding evidence from a small drug dealer in Mesa, Arizona... and withholding evidence from the lawyer of Alec Baldwin.* And I think the prosecutors simply didnt understand this dynamic.
If logged under a different case number, then how did Baldwin and his team even find out about their existence? Could it have been all set up intentionally to have him acquitted? (it's a possibility, but I don't know. We may never know the Truth... like who loaded the live round in the first place and if it was intentional). Someone in the comments was claiming that the brass casing of the live bullet was actually a dummy case, so if that's true, someone would have had to get a dummy round and load a live primer in it, fill it with powder and then press the bullet on it. Seems like something unlikely to happen on accident. It's an assumption really though, because I have no clue if it's true that the brass was from a dummy round and not a real ammo manufacturer).
are you kidding? the man aged 20 years over it, I see a broken man, even now that he is free , he will still feel the loss and somewhat guilty. she was his friend
@@ahitchcock6557 Even as an actor, the look in his eyes surpasses what can be faked (in my personal opinion.) Even more so when you take into the account that he looked like that *after* hearing that he was safe from prosecution.
Yeah, I think that's what most people thought. I am surprised the armorer was convicted though, even if she is guilty. Hard to believe that these prosecutorial misconduct incidents were unintentional. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they were all set up for his case to be dropped without the people being too angry about it. They say that the live rounds were "accidentally" filed under an entirely different case number... but if that's the case, I wonder how Baldwin and his lawyers ever found out about them. Would be interesting to see how that unfolded.
@@deucedeuce1572 He was a producer and that was dropped from the changes - he couldn't be tried as a producer - which to my mind would make him somewhat responsible for the hiring and running of the film set. - They signed up for a reality TV show before the verdict - What TV station or network would invest in a show if there was a strong possibility of him going to jail?" He shot a killed someone and if you unintentionally hit someone with your car its called manslaughter and you face jail time. This, IMO comes down to his politics.
The case against Baldwin was actually pretty decent. I don't believe he had culpability on the level of the armorer, but he still had some. He is lucky the prosecution was seemingly completely incompetent. People keep saying an actor has zero responsibility to check the firearm, but consider this... Baldwin was a producer, who is ultimately responsible for safety on sets. Producers hire the personnel like armorers. They hired a horribly incompetent/inexperienced armorer to save money. They also should've hired more then one because they ended up splitting gun safety responsibilities with other staff on set, but they didn't... again to save money. They had negligent discharges on set before this incident occurred... staff had complained and even walked off set in response to the "unsafe practices on set". Supposedly the crew were taking the firearms out in the desert to shoot live ammo for fun as well. The entire set skipped taking firearm safety classes because the producers didn't have the time or money to spend on that. Baldwins' culpability comes mostly from his failures as a producer. But even as an actor he failed. It doesn't matter if your industry has a standard where actors are not responsible for a certain aspect of safety. Firearms are uniquely different, especially if you are handling a real firearm. I don't know how people feel that is an absolute defense, where any regular citizen has no legal obligation to be trained and competent with a firearm either, yet they can be held criminally responsible if they hurt someone with one. If they handed him a firearm that was actually defective and fired without pulling the trigger, like Baldwin foolishly claimed in a tv interview, then yes, I believe responsibility would fall squarely on the armorer for not maintaining a well functioning firearm. But that was easily disproved as the firearm was shown to be properly functioning. That's just the legal side of things. Morally, he should feel horrible. Baldwin is an outspoken anti gun liberal. And I am saying that as someone who loved him in 30 Rock and as the best guest to be on SNL in recent decades. He openly talks about how evil guns are and advocated for better regulation and harsher punishment for gun crimes, yet he had a lazy approach to gun safety on set and failed to give them the proper respect as deadly tools.
I thought he should have some responsibility, because he was the producer and the armorer's boss. many people are saying though that his contract said otherwise. He was not in charge of her at all and had no authority to fire her (even though he wanted her to be fired). I despise Baldwin, probably more than most people... and I can't really find anything to prove he was legally responsible. He may be found civilly responsible though if he is sued. I think they'll sue his bosses though and not him directly since it wasn't his job.
If he was her boss though and she had already proven to be a serious danger on two previous occasions, does that not at least make him reckless, negligent and at least partially responsible? I have no doubt that it was her job and not his. I've been arguing that from the start (and I despise Baldwin). I know at the very least that he is morally and civilly responsible, because of his negligence... but I'm not sure if there are laws that make him legally responsible though.
What gets me about Baldwin is, first, that his tears were himself and his own career not the dead mom and friend, and second, that he is now claiming that he didn't even pull the trigger! Come on! Stand up like a man whether you're prosecuted or not!
Eh, I certainly think his ability to hire an excellent team helped him substantially in finding these errors and getting off. But I don't think the judge was like "well he's too rich to go to prison". In fact I think a large reason he was prosecuted in the first place was because of his notoriety. My workplace has had a few deaths through the years from worker errors. People have been fired and sued, but no one has ever been arrested. And most of these people have no money to hire a lawyer.
@@jackdanson2anecdotal experiences is not the best bar. Many workplace accidents have also resulted in criminal liability. What you saw at your work is irrelevant.
@@protoman1214 meh, I also briefly looked it up before posting. While there certainly is a possibility of criminal charges in a workplace accident, it seems exceedingly rare. In fact, in the US I couldn't find a single individual that had been charged with manslaughter in these instances. Maybe I'm wrong, if you have examples otherwise I'd love to see them, I find this interesting.
As for the so-called "evidence" - it was not established as evidence at all. It seems NOT to have been collected at the scene by anyone on the investigative team, and it seems not to have been introduced into the trial as such by the prosecution, so I don't see how it was a Brady violation at all! A RETIRED police officer turned in "evidence" he only THOUGHT MIGHT be related to the case? And it was NEVER used to prosecute Baldwin? And on that flimsy basis the judge dismisses the case WITH PREJUDICE? Don't tell me this is not corrupt two-tier "justice"!
Guys Alec Baldwin is a rich d-bag but this dismissal is legit. A prosecutor can’t withhold exculpatory evidence. Brady v. Maryland has spared thousands of criminal defendants, rich and poor, from conviction since 1963 when it was decided. My only nitpick is Dr. Grande saying guilt will eat away at Baldwin. Based on his conversations in the days after the shooting (which he tried unsuccessfully to have excluded from evidence) I don’t think guilt is a human condition he’s very susceptible to.
You always treat any gun as if it's loaded. Yes, the cardinal rules on set are the same as any other place. If you had researched this better, you would have known that; Mr. Baldwin had be warned of that on several occasions prior to the shooting. Those rounds that Troy had turned over were never even in the same state as the shooting occurred; they were not material to the case in any way. Mr. Baldwin's trial was never about the rounds, it was about reckless behavior leading the charge of Involuntary manslaughter, it had nothing to do with the round fire. Again, your research was very poor! But what is material, is this: Something doesn’t feel right about the judge throwing out the case. Mr. Baldwin is completely off the hook for his reckless behavior leading to the charge of Involuntary manslaughter, because of unrelated evidence that inadvertently was not given to the defense, and has no significant exculpatory barring on the merits of the case or trial? This was judicial error on the Judge's part. Something is amiss here. A woman is dead! Where’s the justice for her and her family...
A couple of things trouble my mind in this case...... 1, who allowed live bullets on set ( why would you need them) 2, did Alec Baldwin somehow want the deceased out the way legitimately and this was an underhanded way of getting rid of her. 3, why is there no physical difference between a live round and a dummy round ( at least from the back of the round if loaded) 4, any set should have an experienced armourer on set ( the armourer used had little or no experience) 5, why are "real" weapons used when a dummy gun could be used and then "edit in the noise" of the weapon Far too many things going on here, the family of the deceased have been robbed of justice by a string of wrong doings on so many levels by individuals and situations.
As a producer he was partly responsible for conditions on set. That whole production was a crap show. I live nearby and saw a lengthy statement from the first crew on social media, basically the Italian producers were a bunch of cheapskates and didn’t want to get hotel rooms for the crew. That meant some would have been doing 18 hour days because they had to commute from Albuquerque. The mileage was just under what was required to force the production to get them rooms. In fact the above the line folks openly ridiculed the crew for wanting better conditions. There was also a ton of other safety issues so a lot of crew walked off. Baldwin himself could’ve easily paid a few hundred to treat the crew like human beings and all this could’ve been avoided. When I was a background deputy I had a rubber pew pew and it was ANNOUNCED when I walked on set. There were soooo many screw ups that were avoidable! And I’d heard some people were using the pistols for target practice and that’s how the live rounds got in. But I never heard anything about that from investigators.
I have been following the RUST trials. While Alec Baldwin the actor may have been legally innocent. Alec Baldwin the producer should have been culpable. However the court disallowed Baldwin's role as a producer to be part of this trial. No other producers were indicted. Dave Halls (AD who said "cold gun" which led to Hutchins' death) was given a plea deal. The Rust Production company tried to save money, hence Hannah Gutierrez's hire. There is video of Baldwin "showing off" with a loaded weapon in front of an outsider at the RUST location. Baldwin skipped safety meetings or showed up only to spend time on his phone. After the death, there were the interviews (police, George Stephanopoulos) indicating how familiar Alec Baldwin was with weapons and safety. Mr. Baldwin can now thank incompetent investigators and an over confident prosecutor for his freedom. Ironically the prosecutor Kari Morrissey was similar to the man she desired to imprison, she could not believe that she could ever be wrong. Unlike Halyna Hutchins, Alec Baldwin will be just fine, it is his nature.
Baldwin was not a producer in any material way related to this case. A big name actor will do a low budget movie like this for shit pay in exchange for a producer credit, which will entitle him to money on the back end when the film is sold, licensed out for streaming and video sales. He’s not making hiring decisions
baldwin 100% knew basic firearms safety rules. his dad was an nra rated shooting instructor at a school. 100% he got the firearms safety rules talk on multiple occasions.
So. He wasn't responsible for the guns... so his knowledge of safety was not a factor. It would not be fair or feasible to expect him to check the gun every single time and his job literally requires him to point guns at people and pull the trigger. That's why there's an armorer on the set at all times. The gun was also a gated revolver, which would require each round to be unloaded one at a time, then each round to be checked one at a time and then each round to be reloaded one at a time. It would be ridiculous to expect each and every person to do this check every single time the gun was passed from one person to another... especially if it comes directly from the armorer, who's job it is to check/know which rounds are loaded. Other people said also that the cases of the bullets were cases made by a prop company (only) and are not used/made by any real ammo manufacturers, so if one of the rounds ended up being live, it may have been because someone intentionally loaded a dummy round to cause an "accidental" shooting. I can't say that for a fact though and it's only hearsay until verified. In any case though it really don't matter. It could just mean that there's another person out there that is responsible other than the armorer.
This case also applies for any QC/equipment/inspection situation. Persons A & B are responsible for checking, then hand over to User C. If A & B are apparently 100% does C have any responsibility for failure? You could argue that C is relying on A & B (the experts) & should have no responsibility. But, any user has to be aware of their proper handling & the possibility of mistakes by A & B. Humans are fallible, never assume.
Thanks for the upload, Dr. Grande! Your true fans love your humor and sarcasm. July 14 is National Grand Marnier Day, Bastille Day, International Nude Day, Tape Measure Day, Shark Awareness Day, International Non-Binary People's Day (precisely between 3/8 International Women's Day and 11/19 International Men's Day), National Macaroni and Cheese Day (gotta have some MORE and my last Stouffer's macaroni and cheese later!), National Ice Cream Day (gotta have some NEW Häagen-Dazs mint chocolate chip Extras ice cream later!), Emmeline Pankhurst Day, and Pandemonium Day.
@@Flamsterette really? Even the occasional use of cringy alliteration in summary at the end of some videos? Can I find it cringy and still be a true fan?
Right?! It's not just Dr Grande's videos it's all over! Sometimes they bounce to different places, sometimes they just disappear... and sometimes there's a blank space in the comments section where your comment should be and other people can see it but you can't. I'm just praying that AI isn't running anything important. 😮
@@windywednesday4166 The most seemingly uncontroversial comment I ever had removed was when I praised a recipe on my favourite Indian cooking channel. Usually it happens on more political channels and you have to be very creative in order not to use certain words that trigger the RU-vid bots.
@@marijo1951 Right? I mostly watch art channels! Art! It's been especially crazy the last couple of weeks... I guess 3 now. RU-vid is constantly having to reboot too. It's weird. Idk if it's a new AI program or if RU-vid is under a hack attack. SMH. 😳
@@windywednesday4166 Somebody suggested that RU-vid has a huge bug or glitch in the system that they're secretive about, because they just can't get rid of it. I'm too tech-ignorant to be able to comment, but if it is true, I hope they fix it soon. I've occasionally commented on the Art Deco channel and so far they've stayed visible, but I'm prepared for the worst now!
@marijo1951 agreed! I've left such benign comments that have disappeared, such as "maybe not yet"... like, seriously?? It's hard to know which are words blacklisted by the channel vs by youtube or whether there's any truth to the spam theory (apparently posting in quick succession can make the bots think you're a bot lol). I've even had a creator tell me they were unable to reply to my comment, so even when they are published, they can't necessarily be replied to. I keep swearing off posting because it's so frustrating yet here I am
I despise Alec Baldwin as a person, but the prosecution effed up, possibly on purpose. The judgment remains the same. But I will not watch or pay $1 to view "Rust".
@@georgia5341 You don't have to MEET someone to despise them. Do you "dislike" Hitler or despise him? Do you "dislike" Ted Bundy or despise him? People with TDS (of which there are many) *DESPISE* him without ever having met him. If you KNOW someone's *ACTIONS* then you can *DEFINITELY* despise them. End of story.
@@georgia5341Because he's a liar, he even lies about things that don't matter: "My wife is from Spain!" In addition he's physically and verbally assaulted reporters- and been ordered to take anger management classes which clearly haven't worked.
I don't necessarily like what I've seen of Alex Baldwin but, to be fair, didn't his wife lead him to believe she was from Spain when she met him? It wasn't as if the whole "Spain" ruse was his idea.
Thanks for good analysis. In my country the person responsible for a worksite can be charged with a crime with gaol time attached if an employee is killed in the workplace. In this case eg, if he didn’t check the credentials of his armouror properly and she was uncertified he would be in trouble. Not ordinary manslaughter charge though. PS I love that you say dates as twenty this and twenty that. So many people say two thousand and, which drives me crazy. 😊
Well, that sounds fair enough... but I believe there were nine Producers accredited on the film, Alec was one of them. Eight of them had nothing to do with actually running the production. Alec was a producer 'in name only', although I believe he had some artistic input. The person who hired the crew, including the armourer, was the 'Line Producer' Gabriella Pickle. Oddly enough I don't think the line producer is one of the credited Producers... but she was the one who hired and oversaw the crew.
I agree with the broad position here, and Mr Baldwin should be free. But 2 things play on my mind.....early on someone on Court TV posed...." if the scene called for a self induced gunshot to the head, would AB have taken the extra 5 seconds to check it? Secondly, there's be scenes released where "cut" is called and AB fires and does his own thing, or calls for immediate/continual scene shooting. Those things speak not of intent to kill, but 'fark everyone else, you do what I say'...that's makes things unsafe and people did leave. Probably a 3rd thing to....according to Gloria Allred, 2-3 days ago AB has NEVER reached out to Helena's parents. Between that and his arrogant display during opening arguments, walking out of the courtroom when he didn't like what was said......AB has an EGO like the pyramids! It looked terrible. If one of his 7 children wanted to act, would he want them to check the gun, or just leave it, cause 'x' said it's OK. Should NEVER have happened after The Crow, and is PROOF that movie production has learnt nothing. (In that regard).
Fast on the videos lately! I am happy about dismissal, told people he shouldn't be held responsible, it was Hannah's & Dave's job. Seemed like sabotage. Great points as always. Thanks Dr G😊💙💙
