Exactly as we told readers about a day or two after this happened, the guilty party was found so by a jury in about two hours of deliberations. This could have happened two years ago, without anyone in NM law enforcement or prosecution even breaking a sweat. Which begs the question of how they couldn't figure this out then, and go to trial with the obvious answer a foregone conclusion. [Hint: Because BFEgypt D.A.s wanted to stick it to a big-name actor, to "make their bones", whether he was guilty or not. Johnny Depp trial watchers, stop me if you've Amber Heard this one.]
The bigger crime is noted above: Halyna Hutchins is dead forever, in a tragedy that was completely avoidable with any two brain cells, if only they'd been used; but this incompetent crackhead is looking at only 18 months, max. Only if she gets the maximum, serves every day, and gets punched in the face and beaten to a pulp daily by the other prisoners, does this approach anything like justice. Even then, it's probably too light a sentence.
Her cohort, serial on-set weapons fuck-up and now-retired-for-life 2d A.D. Dave Halls (who couldn't get a job making rubber dog poop commercials in Hong Kong anyways after this incident), scored a sweetheart plea deal with the D.A. and walked away otherwise unscathed after pleading his total criminal incompetence and dereliction as well, admitting he didn't do anything he was supposed to do as Reed's assistant, including making sure Baldwin's gun was harmless and loaded only with harmless dummy rounds, which he's already admitted in open court he didn't do.
The two of them should both be spending several years in prison for this, minimum. But won't, because the Albuquerque * {my mistake} Bumfuckistan D.A. makes Halls and Gutierrez-Reed look like seasoned professionals at their jobs by contrast with the assclowns prosecuting crimes in New Mexico.
So, with the two people solely and entirely responsible - actually, as well as by custom, practice, and black-letter rules - for ensuring what happened should never happen, and found not just actually but legally and entirely criminally negligent at their jobs, the D.A. still wants to proceed with trying to assign guilt on real-life fucktard Baldwin, apparently for being an actor on set with a prop weapon, which the script for the scene being rehearsed called for him to point and fire (with blanks) directly at the camera. (For Common Core grads, that's called doing your job.) If he'd been twirling guns and pointing them at crew members at the craft service table, there'd be an argument for gross negligence. But when you're handed what you're loudly and clearly told is a "cold (i.e. unloaded) gun", by the people in charge of ensuring that's exactly what it is, in order to rehearse a scene where you draw it, point right at the camera, and fire, and rehearsing doing that, alleging anything but being an actor doing his job is going to be a tough row to hoe.
Short of demonstrating his knowing complicity and deliberate direction of the negligence of Reed and Halls, or proving he brought and loaded the live rounds himself, which not even the tinfoil conspiracy theorists have yet attempted, the only way for the D.A.'s office to get there from here is via a gross miscarriage of justice. Which seems to be their exact intent, with the single-mindedness of Captain Ahab.
Either way, it's a win-win: either justice wins, or Baldwin goes to prison. I come down on the former choice being the much better outcome, but I'm not unsympathetic to those who'd like to see Baldwin taken down for being such a loudmouthed ignorant world-class anti-gun asshole for all those years. Other than that whole "innocent people shouldn't go to prison" thingie. You do you, and I'll do me, and we'll see who sleeps better at night. Let's hope none of us have to see how you feel when an outspoken pro-gun actor has a similar case someday*, and you find yourself having gajillions of anti-gun Leftards making your case for you. Like. They. Will. The death involved isn't worth the "I told you so" for anyone.
When a production hires people to do a job, and they knowingly don't just shirk it, but in fact knowingly and deliberately violate virtually every single written rule and regulation for firearms and ammunition on set, and then hand a live loaded weapon to an actor after telling the entire crew it's harmless, finding the guy they handed it to guilty is like blaming the Chief Engineer in the engine room of the Titanic for the ship's sinking.
Given the unmitigated jackassery since the incident by NM officialdom, nothing would surprise us at this point, other than them finally having the sense to drop the case, declare victory, and call it a day.
*(What...? You thought no one working with guns in Hollywood would set up someone on "our" side to get tit-for-tat if Baldwin goes down? They're setting themselves on fire, literally, FFS. Re-think your premises, and tell me if you'd rather live in Rule Of Law Land, or Kangaroo Court Partisanville. Robbespierre or Pol Pot v2.0 awaits your decision. Howzat working out for you with POTUS 45...? Asking for a few hundred million friends and neighbors.)
12 comments:
Yes, Baldwin was doing his job. No, the other two clowns did not do theirs. Maybe (but probably not) Baldwin will learn a little bit of firearm safety. I don't care who hands me a firearm and tells everyone in earshot that it is unloaded, I'll check it. If I'm not familiar with that firearm, they have to prove it. Again, not defending Baldwin. Just hoping he learns something that might make him a better person.
Begin.
Bob
The obvious difference though is that when someone hands you a weapon, your reasonable expectation should be that it is a deadly weapon and always loaded with rounds that could kill or injure, unless you're an actor on a production set.
For an actor on a set, the expectation is 180° the opposite, and that at most, blanks are involved only when expressly called for and clearly announced, and that in 99.99999% of cases (the exceptions are miniscule), live rounds will NEVER be involved.
The point has always been that it's not only none of the actor's business to "check" a weapon, it's actually a labor violation subject to binding legal grievances to do so. They can, at most, watch while loading takes place (but are never required to do so) by others, and that only happens on sets with conscientious and scrupulously diligent production staff and crew; with criminally incompetent drug addicts, not so much.
This is why there should still be several other people on that crew in the hot seat as proximately negligent, possibly even criminally so, and none of them are named "Baldwin".
As the linked story made clear, in the jury's opinion, Reed could have handed a loaded weapon to anyone on set, at any time, in 12 days, because she never had any wild clue she had live rounds in her possession or property (until after her incompetence and criminal negligence killed someone); the miracle is that it only happened after 12 days, and with anti-gun @$$hole Baldwin, of all people, holding the offending prop weapon.
Karma's a bitch like that.
Like most attempts at gun control, there is no safety rule in existence, or even imaginable, that will work when you have people who won't follow those rules no matter what.
QED
Thanks for that. Didn't know it would be a union violation, and might actually be a safety issue. I'm sure Baldwin wouldn't have known what he was looking at anyway.
Bob
Depends on if the DA needs an autograph.
I have been reading your commentary on this case since you first started writing it. And I have to say that I am in 99.99% agreement I am in onset armorer and have worked on multiple movies that you have seen. I, and every other serious armor in Hollywood/ New York simply shake our head in disbelief. All of the players in this drama have an awful reputation. Including, as you noted , the first A.D., but also the prop rental company.
All of these players were drummed out of real Hollywood years ago - and can only make a living doing these type of low budget pictures. But for reasons I don’t understand, they got a deal.
A long time ago I was a 24-year-old armorer on one of the biggest movies ever made, so I am somewhat sympathetic to the position she found herself in. In my case there was 100 years of onset experience above me. I was not the Department Head.
A big part of being an armor is being able to tell people, much older and richer than you, - “NO”. That is an acquired skill. One that she obviously did not have the chance to acquire. And one I would argue, should have precluded her from that position.
One point that I would like to make, because I see it referenced so often, is the idea that Alec Baldwin violated Jeff Cooper’s 4 firearm rules. I am a firearm enthusiast outside of work - and I abide by those rules religiously.
***But, as you stated, a film set is not a gun range.***
All kinds of things happen on film sets (on camera) that would be otherwise illegal, immoral, or unethical in other environments. I have helped to simulate countless murders and suicides. I.have watched people be lit on fire and thrown off of roofs, I have played a part in car chases on Los Angeles streets that exceeded 100 miles an hour. I have watched people get run over by cars, raped, tortured to death, etc. and in every single one of those cases everyone went home at the end of the day, ready to do it again tomorrow .
A film set is a place where you simulate reality. And believe it or not, the people who are capable of simulating reality, identically over and over again know an awful lot about the way reality works. That is a requirement to do the job safely.
The key issue in this case, was that of the live round entering that stage, and then not being identified at any time. Over 12 days there were at least a dozen checks that could have/ should have been made. That is at the heart of the negligence.
The only thing that I could say about Baldwin is that he *could have asked permission to see what was in the gun, but he was not required to do. He also should not have accepted a gun from a 1st AD. But* this was a low budget show and the 1st AD was acting as a stand in. And the show was falling apart and crews were walking off set. So it was chaos. And chaos is the time you lock up the gun truck and tell everyone to take 5.
As a producer, he is a creative producer, he had nothing to do with hiring the crew, etc. so if you want to go after him as a producer, he’s the last producer that you go after from a culpability point of view .
As a mental exercise - Riddle me this. How do we film a suicide scene (pistol in mouth) without violation all 4 of Coopers rules?
Having done this several times, I can tell you it is nerve racking EVERY.SINGLE.TIME. No matter how many checks you do, no matter how many people witness the condition of the gun. And if at any time in your career, it stops being nerve racking - then it’s time to hang it up and to find a new job.
^That. Right there.
That's the difference between hearing someone with the experience of working in Local 44 (Property) for decades, versus listening to the local Cliff Clavin at the gun store who once watched part of an episode of Law & Order.
Lot of guilt to go around, in my opinion. Everybody from the shooter (Baldwin) to the producer (also Baldwin). Failure everywhere.
Thanks, Anon. That was a very helpful and insightful post about how the process works on set.
I am, frankly, conflicted, although I agree with Aesop. The law should work impartially and the guilty (and only the guilty) punished. That said, I do not get the sense that Baldwin gets that although he may not be technically guilt, according to the law, he none the less ultimately pulled the trigger.
One of the things that haunts me in my own training is the possibility that I may injure someone. That makes me - and all of my fellow practitioners - highly cautious, and even the slightest contact with a bokuto (wooden training sword) the source of many apologies. The idea that I could bring real injury and would still continue to train horrifies me.
In a truly just world, as Aesop has suggested, Baldwin would not be charged as, per the law, he is not culpable. Also, in a truly just world, he would never work again and if he had a shred of self respect, would simply disappear and perhaps spend his life donating to worthy causes. Families affected by gun violence come to mind.
@Bryce,
Baldwin was 1 of 12 producers on the movie. He neither hired nor fired anyone, nor was he the line producer (i.e. the producer responsible for daily operations on set). His producer credit was in exchange for providing the original story. He has no culpability except as owning 1/12th of the civil damages. There is no line of criminal culpability you can draw to him for anything he was responsible for, as a producer.
He was only the shooter because the people responsible for weapons safety sabotaged the prop and handed him a live loaded weapon.
There's no duty he was obliged to perform that was negligent in performing.
So the only problem with your opinion is there's nothing in law to back it up.
You don't like Baldwin? Fine. That's a big club.
But that's not sufficient cause to throw him in prison, which is all 99% of this has ever been since it happened.
You must have missed the sign. We left Rule of Law Land 5 to 10 years ago.The sign Entering Kangaroo Court Partisanville is far in the rear view mirror.
Nope. Not across the board. Just a couple of times and places.
There are exceptions, but surrendering the entire thing wholesale is crazy talk.
Make them fight for every inch.
Yeah, funny how all you hear from the UPM, LP, and Prop Master (under whose authority the Armorer works) is crickets. None of them are volunteering to tell NM what the chain of command and authority on set is... and none of them should be able to find work in the industry again either.
I'm out of the business, and won't go back, but I hope someone is taking notes...
nick
Post a Comment