Grand jury in New Mexico charged the actor for a shooting on Rust set that killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins

Actor Alec Baldwin is facing a new involuntary manslaughter charge over the 2021 fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the movie Rust.

A Santa Fe, New Mexico, grand jury indicted Baldwin on Friday, months after prosecutors had dismissed the same criminal charge against him.

During an October 2021 rehearsal on the set of Rust, a western drama, Baldwin was pointing a gun at cinematographer Halyna Hutchins when it went off, fatally striking her and wounding Joel Souza, the film’s director.

Baldwin, a co-producer and star of the film, has said he did not pull the trigger, but pulled back the hammer of the gun before it fired.

Last April, special prosecutors dismissed the involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin, saying the firearm might have been modified prior to the shooting and malfunctioned and that forensic analysis was warranted. But in August, prosecutors said they were considering re-filing the charges after a new analysis of the weapon was completed.

  • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    65
    ·
    10 months ago

    I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, if you’re holding a weapon it is your responsibility to know if that weapon is live, I don’t care who hands it to you or under what context. Children learn this in rifle safety.

    Does the armorer share responsibility? Definitely. But you can’t just say “someone else got hired to do that so Baldwin is off the hook.” Even pointing a gun around, live ammo or not, with the hammer cocked is plainly asinine and unsafe behavior. All Baldwin needed to do was take 5 seconds to open the chamber and look at the bullets to prevent someone losing their life, if that’s not negligence then what exactly is?

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      45
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again, the rules of firearm safety apply in common situations, not on professional movie sets. I’m reminded of a video of a parked car causing a massive pile up in a bicycle race, because even though it wasn’t moving, the people in the middle of the pack can’t see past the cyclists in front of them, and can’t dodge the car in time. That post got comment after comment about how stupid the cyclists were, how you should always be prepared to stop at a moment’s notice, how you should never cycle anywhere without at least six miles of visibility, but the thing is, in bicycle races, common sense doesn’t apply. The roads are supposed to be clear because cyclists aren’t going to be able to see far enough ahead of them to properly react to obstacles, because that’s what bicycle races are like.

      Similarly, when you’re at your friend’s house and he’s showing off his new carbine, you absolutely treat it like they’re a moron who left it chambered, and even after you make sure it’s clear, you don’t put your finger on the trigger and you don’t point it at anyone. This isn’t because it might still shoot, it’s because you need to practice that muscle memory in case your idiot friend doesn’t clear it next time. But when you’re on a movie set, the norm switches. You’re working with professionals, and when they tell you it’s cold, it’s supposed to be safe to assume that it is in fact cold. A million other actors have made that assumption a million times each, and it’s been a safe assumption virtually every time. The people at fault when the gun isn’t cold aren’t the actors who trusted the professionals, it’s the professionals who brought live ammo to a movie set.

    • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      I’d flip the share of liability, personally. The primary liable party is the armorer since it’s their actual job to handle these things. But Baldwin shares in liability IMO because of the negligence of not verifying the state of the firearm. Especially after he knew others had used it for firing real rounds.

      The whole thing is just sloppy as hell and highlights to me why regulations need to be in place, or movies need to let go of the gun firing bullshit. Every god damned thing is done in CG now, they can’t afford muzzle flash suddenly?

        • Dr. Dabbles@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Who the hell knows. He claims he was rehearsing the scene, which seems plausible. The scene being filmed would have resulted in the same injury and death, so cameras rolling doesn’t seem to be an important aspect.

          A better questions would be why TF the industry as a whole allows people in the path of the barrel, why they insist on using firearms with blanks, and why acting staff aren’t given training on any weapon they will handle so they know how to properly inspect them.

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

          it’s called a camera test.

          Baldwin, the cinematographer and the director were all working through blocking (the movements needed for when the camera would be actually rolling).

          The camera was in position, and the cinematographer and director were both looking through the monitors to adjust lighting and such.

          This is all very standard stuff, and if one of the dummy rounds hadn’t actually been a reload of live ammo, it would have remained standard.

          This talks about how the live ammo made it onto the set.

          https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-investigators-live-rounds-alec-baldwin-1235122384/

          Baldwin could have looked at the logos on the bullets, seen the Starline Brass, and assumed that they were all dummy rounds. Only 5 of the 6 were.

      • Dangdoggo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Yeah I do agree it is primarily her fault (though why she was hired in the first place is a whole other thing, I suspect Baldwin had little to do with that anyway though). I just think he needs to take his part of the blame and not just be let off because he’s a celebrity boy.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        10 months ago

        As both the one holding the gun and the one who had a say in hiring the armorer Baldwin absolutely deserves the majority of the blame.

    • loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      Core military leadership lesson: you can delegate authority, but it is impossible to delegate responsibility.

      • lepinkainen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        10 months ago

        So if a stuntman dies on set the producer should be prosecuted because they hired the stunt coordinator?

        • loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is not my area of expertise, but I’d guess that there is a difference between responsibility and criminal responsibility.

          The producer could probably be sued in civil court.