Tuesday, February 7, 2023

ElastiGirl For The Prosecution

Last week, in comments by nick flandrey, it was noted that the N.M. idiot prosecutor had released their charging documents regarding Alec Baldwin.

I ask forbearance for taking this long to get back to that, but wading through 12 pages of mostly pure horseshit takes a toll, and I could only stand a page or two at a time.

TL;DR? Prop Tart Hannah Reed was clearly only the second-most retarded and incompetent person at their job in that state in October of 2021. Prosecutor Altwies FTW.


Detailed fisking, after perusing twelve pages of nonsense, follows:

The only count arguable for any defendant is the second count "a lawful act...which might produce death without due caution and circumspection".

Halfwit D.A. Mary Altwies then goes into considerable detail to make her case, as one would hope in such a proceeding.

Her first error is referring to Baldwin as "a primary producer of the film". In forensic argument, this called Lying With The Truth, as Baldwin was, in fact, a producer of the film, but as there were ten to twelve such producers, the only way to make him primary would be to ass-rape the English language in open court. He was no such thing.

Baldwin came up with the story idea, which he assigned to the company, in exchange for being lead actor, credit as one of the producers, and likely a fraction of the gross profits. (There are no net profits on movies, as Art Buckwald learned to his chagrin after Paramount stole the idea for Coming To America from him, and when he won the suit, they explained to him how he was owed nothing, since it "never made a profit", on a movie that grossed $289M). Starring in the movie, and coming up with the story idea, were the sum total of his producer responsibilities on the project. Trying to rope him into being legally responsible for conduct outside of that is far beyond recockulous, and his culpability never rises above a share of civil damages (good luck with that on an LLC), let alone criminal conduct.

The D.A. alleges that the scene being rehearsed "did not require the weapon to be fired". Problem she's going to have there is that sworn affidavits from all concerned a year and a half ago stated that the scene was of Baldwin's character drawing, cocking, and firing while pointing right at the camera. In subsequent paragraphs, the D.A. admits that the rehearsal repeatedly involved Baldwin practicing drawing, pointing, and cocking the pistol, with his finger on the trigger. And the only way to let the hammer down after cocking it is to pull the trigger. So the D.A. cannot have this both ways, and still claim "J'Accuse!". At the end of the day, it won't matter, in any event, because none of that action matters in proving Baldwin's criminal negligence.

The D.A. alleges that common practice would have been to use a "plastic gun or replica gun".

1) That's not common practice.

2) That's not up to Baldwin, neither as actor nor producer.

3) It would have been idiotic to use anything that couldn't be cocked and fired, as that's the exact thing being rehearsed. So suggestions of using a plastic gun are quite simply retarded, as well as factually wrong. And it's also not common practice to swap back and forth between the "hero" prop, and a replica, between rehearsal and shooting the scene. That just adds more unnecessary complication and confusion, so once again, is neither common practice, nor smart, and thus a functionally retarded suggestion.

The following is quoted at length:

"Statements and evidence show BALDWIN was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming. Statements, depositions from OSHA, and evidence show BALDWIN was provided only minimal training on firearms, even after REED requested more training for BALDWIN. In the deposition taken from REED, she state BALDWIN had very limited training on the cross-draw that was required for the scene on the 21st and limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded, in which REED felt it was very important in his role as RUST[sic]. A training session for at least an hour or more was scheduled, but the actual training consisted of only approximately 30 minutes as according to REED, BALDWIN was distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."


So the District Attorney is saying that, based on the deep experience (roughly 5 minutes of actual cinematic weapons handling) of Reed, Baldwin wasn't competent, because he missed 30 minutes of a 60-minute training session, conducted by such a rank amateur?!?

And after 15 months of investigation and deliberation, that's what they brought to court to find Baldwin negligent?

We'll get back to the D.A's allegation that Baldwin was incompetent at weapons handling later in her summation. [Hint: Shot herself in the foot, right there. No pun intended.]

She then notes that the F.B.I. was unable to get the weapon in question to fire inadvertently. 

Point Of Order: You cannot "prove" a negative. The FBI merely proved they couldn't get the weapon to fire inadvertently, not that it cannot be done. "Unable to reproduce result" damns the tester, not the allegation, by logical necessity. Edison couldn't get a light bulb to work 999 times, either. That didn't prove electric light bulbs are impossible.

The FBI did find FIVE OTHER live rounds on the set of Rust, in addition to the one that went off, and further determined that they did not match any rounds on hand at the prop supplier for the picture (in what must have been a vast relief to that company).

Of the five recovered, 

one was in Reed's possession when police arrived, 

one was on her armorer's cart (along with the spent casing from the fatal round fired) 

one was on a bandolier on her cart, 

one from Baldwin's holster [sic - probably belt loop] inside the church, and 

one from an unsecured ammunition box located on the armorer's cart. 

So there were six live rounds in total scattered all around the working set. All in violation of an entire safety bulletin, and all totally without any knowledge of same, by Reed, Halls, or anyone else.

And anyone figures Baldwin, unlike the propmaster, weapon handler, weapons assistant/1st AD, stunt people, or anyone else, would have been able to determine this critical fact on the day, by "checking"...how, praytell?

"Evidence further shows that BALDWIN, as an actor who has extensive experience in the film industry involving firearm(s)"

Waitwaitwait, D.A. Yappypants: Just a few short paragraphs back, you were alleging that Baldwin was a menace to society because he was undertrained, having perhaps missed 30 more minutes of weapons instruction of someone doing firearms in movies for less time than the reader has been reading this article, so far. WTAF?!?!? Which is it? You can't have that both ways, yet here we are.

Then she damns him, as an actor, for not demanding 

"at least (2) two safety checks between the armorer and himself and witnessing the handling of firearms by the first assistant director. Standard protocol is the armorer to show the firearm, pull the bullets out in front of the actor, and demonstrate there are no live rounds (but dummies) in the firearm. BALDWIN knows this is standard safety protocols he has mentioned it in media interviews and in law enforcement interviews. REED did not do this protocol in front of BALDWIN. BALDWIN did not object to this action. REED discusses in her interviews with OSHA and law enforcement this should have occurred. REED also acknowledges in her interviews she should have been in the church with the firearm at all times. Instead, she left the church while BALDWIN was in possession of a firearm while in close proximity to cast and crew. BALDWIN further acknowledges that it is standard protocol for armorers to stay with the firearm at all times in the media and interviews."

This is why it was so hard to get through this. There is so much bullshit in that one paragraph, it would choke a 40-mule wagon team to death at one sitting.

The industry regulations for firearms are here. The ones for live ammunition are here.

There is NO REQUIREMENT that the rounds be loaded in front of the actor. The requirement is that the armorer and their designated armorer assistant check the weapon and monitor the loading. Actors near the line of fire may request to witness that loading. There is no stipulation that the actor holding the prop, or anyone else, check the loading, witness it, nor even be present. Period. Counselor Halfwit could look it up.

And so far, she's just done a splendid job of damning the multiple failings of Prop Tart Reed, and admitted criminal felon Halls, (let off by the same D.A. with just a six-month's probation wrist slap) who was the first assistant director, and has already admitted his own criminally negligent failures to provide due diligence in weapons checking.

All they've got Baldwin on are not doing Reed's job, and not doing weapons assistant (and 1st Assistant Director) Halls' jobs, and yet they're trying to make it Baldwin's responsibility to triple-check their performance and whereabouts, something which is no part of anyone else's job, not actors, not directors, and not producers. This all happened because of serial failures by Reed and Halls, as we've told you. And told you. And told you.

But wait! There's more!

And which, in due course, we'll continue with. This is only the halfway point of Altwies' wander into stretching like ElastiGirl to come up with some theory whereby any of the cock-ups detailed on that cursed production are Baldwin's fault, and frankly, we're hungry, and a nice meal beats the prospect of examining the rest of Altwies' halfwitical brain droppings, rather than tucking in to a fine dinner. We'll pick this up later, after our appetite cannot be further ruined.


Anonymous said...

It's a political farce to base the prosecutors reelection then on to states attorney. No need for anyone to get their shorts in a knot.

Stealth Spaniel said...

This just proves that most DA's, assistant DA's, and other idiots paid BIGBUX from the taxpayers should be proclaimed Official Government Twits with no real brains nor training in their respective field. As usual, IT IS ALL A FARCE!! I'll take any 5 ranchers in New Mexico, with no legal training, no list of rules from the guilds in Hollyweird, and 1 cow pasture and get the most fair and resonable outcome on the entire 💩show. "Twat's my name Reed" should be tarred and feathered and then let the surviving family at her.

Mike-SMO said...

But, But. But.

I am willing to assume that the crew was framing shot for a move that had Baldwin's character fire a shot right at the camera for one of those ""intense", rheatrical images.

Baldwin was not "THE" producer, but he was the on site producer who had hired and fired people. He knew, or should have known, that some individuals had been playing with live ammo (training let's say) and that his armorer was a newbe and a mouse who didn't have the moxie to take control of the firearms.

The set up (rehersal) had him point his revolver at the camera. If he fired a live round, it would have trashed the debris shield, the camera and would have freaked the camera operator. In fact, he pointed the revolver at a person standing off camera and pulled the trigger. Ooops, but a foreseeable event in light of the circumstances and the people he hired and tolerated. Baldwin made a foolish, dangerous act that killed someone. The camera was probably leased and insured. The wonN died.

It may reflect one of my early experiences. A friend grabbed one of his Father's antique pistols to show us, pulled the slide back and released it when he saw the full magazine. Fortunately, he pulled the trigger before handing the pistol to one of the novices in the room. That created a hole in a picture, the bedroom wall, his Father's suit in the next room, and several closet walls. He knew better but was tired. Fortunately, he pointed the pistol in a relatively safe direction and pulled the trigger.

A firearm is ALWYS loaded.

Baldwin screwed the pooch on hiring, on supervision and on safety. Bejng an on-site producer means something. He was running that show and he screwed up. He had no need to point the revolver at a person and then pull the trigger. If he had hit the camera, call the insurance agent. But HE pointed the revolver at a human and pulled the trigger. HE allowed gun play on set. HE skipped safety reviews. HE hired a mouse who couldn't tell him to stuff it while she controlled the firearms in her care. HE did everything that led to the dead body and should stand accountable. Arrogance does not replace responsibility. He was on-site producer responsible for hiring, firing, and everything else. Let the jury have him.

If I was on the jury, I would disallow everything he said. He is an accomplished actor following a script written by his lawyer. He needlessly pointed the revolver at an innocent victim and pulled the trigger. Jackpot!

I think An(o)n is correct. This is all for the benefit of the Prosecutor. There is too much money involved to allow a conviction.

Tucanae Services said...

"There is NO REQUIREMENT that the rounds be loaded in front of the actor. ..."

That may well be the case, but if I was on set and expected to handle a firearm in any capacity I would be standing there watching the firearm be loaded. My ole man drilled two things in my head. 1) Don't point a firearm at anything you don't expect it to kill down range. 2) If you are handed a firearm you assume nothing, strip it of ammo if any, check for condition, then reload it.

nick flandrey said...

It occurs to me that there is probably a large helping of "Fuck the outsider" and "must protect the grrl check box hire" going on here too.


Aesop said...


Baldwin was NOT the "on-site" producer, known as the Line Producer. Everything that proceeds from that misstatement of fact is a FAIL.

Those titles mean things, and waving a wand doesn't change reality.
He was on-site at all only because he was the lead actor.
He hired and fired no one.
It was neither his job nor his function to "know things", nor act on them. You're trying to shoe-horn the same clairvoyance into him that the prosecutor is demanding, which is recockulous.

He had no idea that any live ammo was in use, and such is specifically prohibited on production sets. The keeping of such ammunition is entirely the province of a weapon handler (Reed), governed by an entire safety bulletin of its very own, and she broke nearly every one of those rules too, starting by even having it on set. No part of that entire movie ranch is a live-fire range, and the minute it becomes a working production set, those two worlds can never be the same place.

Hutchins was standing on-camera, right over and behind the operator, with the director right behind her. That fact is the reason anyone was hit at all. There was no "shield" (which is minimal plexiglass to stop unburnt powder and wadding only), and would only be placed at all as such if blanks had been in use, which everyone knew was not yet. The armorer's assistant/1st AD had already told everyone Baldwin had a "cold gun", asserting that he himself had witnessed its safe loading with only dummy rounds.

As Baldwin neither hired nor "tolerated" the people on set, that whole paragraph is farcical imagination, not reality.

Movie prop guns aren't to be "firearms". They're supposed to look like firearms. They should not chamber, nor be able to chamber, live ammunition. Reed's first mistake was that.

Baldwin had no hiring authority whatsoever, no safety responsibilities on-set other than himself, and no supervision responsibilities, and any claims to the contrary are counter-factual bullshit. The only time he pointed a weapon, it was in rehearsal, for the exact scene scripted, and he pointed it where he was told to do so by people who, like Baldwin, expected the personnel hired would be diligent and circumspect at their jobs, as they represented when they were hired. They instead broke nearly every single precept of those jobs, and someone died. One of them has already pled guilty to exactly those multiple failures.

If you were on the jury, you should be tossed off for incompetence and bias, if the best you can do is throw out all the facts of the actual case, rather than the imaginations of your fancy, in reaching a pre-selected verdict.

Which has been the problem with everyone who's taken a contrary view of this: their minds are made up from the outset, and they don't wish to listen to the actual facts of the case, and they get butthurt by Reality.

Thanks for being the poster child for the "But, but, but..." side of the argument.

Now go read Part II, and see all the manifest ways you got your assumptions wrong, wrong, wrong.

If there is a conviction (entirely possible if they get twelve knuckleheads who know more than anyone, and don't listen to the facts), it would be a gross miscarriage of justice. This was a low-budget piece-of-shit non-union flick. There's no "money" at stake.

If things go right and justice is done, the defense will mop the floor with the prosecutor and her asinine assumptions contrary to fact. (Pretty much the exact same ones you made.)
If not, the defense counsel should be disbarred for incompetence and severe retardation.

Baldwin never should have been charged. That was a prima facie miscarriage of justice, and malicious prosecution. There are 2 to 6 people on that production with clear culpability for the death and injury that occurred, and none of them were named Alec Baldwin.

Rhea said...

Props to you for wading through that mess, Aesop. I have no use for crusading prosecutors. I'm not Baldwin fan but I hope his legal team eats this DA for lunch.

If this is what she's willing to do, for cheap gimmick or political points to a man with the buying ability to get the best lawyers, what does she do to people who don't can afford those lawyers?


Aesop said...

The bigger issue to me, is why she waited 15 months to prosecute, with information they had a year ago...??
If didn't take 15 months for the FBI to pull the bullets.

Reed and Halls are clearly grossly criminally negligent, possible Zachary, and arguably the UPM and Line Producer.

Baldwin, far beyond any reasonable doubt, was just the guy holding the match after a conga-line parade of assclowns loaded the cannon and lit the fuse.

Everybody in Hollywood figured out who the actual culprit(s) were (and always had to be) within days of the incident. Podunk prosecutor had to check the weather report, sacrifice a goat, and call in all her lifelines, and still fornicated it up six ways to Sunday. I'm not entirely convinced her law school wasn't also a veterinary college and muffler shop.

Anonymous said...

What look like, what is, not same.

You're looking at the charging document as if its a novel. As if there is a beginning, middle, and end. And they better have continuity.

To the contrary, the charge is found in the charging document.
(I know, but stay with me)
You can't argue what isn't there.
With one weird trick it makes sense that both sides of the coin are equally culpable. It is why you will see such as 'he wasn't trained', and 'he had extensive training' both said by the same person, of the same man, both are being true.

Walter Coast said...

Last year I was scolded here for suggesting Alec Baldwin was responsible for pointing a loaded gun at a person and pulling the trigger; and he may be charged with that undeniable crime.

So here we are.

Volumes have been argued over this issue but the fact remains, Alec Baldwin pointed a gun at a person and pulled the trigger and killed them.

In every situation, that is a crime. There is no exception for those who are pretending, except perhaps by reason of insanity.

So what will happen?

New Mexico likes those Hollywood dollars so maybe nothing. The government has learned the process can be the punishment. This will all be an expensive and stressful hassle for Alec as they overcharge and drag it out for months.

The prosecutor will "blow" the case and he will be found not guilty. Or he may be found guilty (since he actually did it) but given a suspended sentence.

Justice is "served" and New Mexico stays on the whitelist.

Or, maybe, Alec Baldwin is such an unsympathetic person that the prosecutor will lay out the clear case that he pointed a gun at someone and killed them. And the jury will agree 100% that he did it, and when done carelessly, it is a crime. And maybe the judge will give the full sentence of 18 months.

Should I be scolded for suggesting he may be found guilty just as I was scolded for suggesting he may be charged?

Let's see what happens.

Aesop said...

You're still scoldable for skipping over multiple other salient facts, to present that half-assed summation of the case, as did the prosecutor at the indictment.

The fact remains, Alec Baldwin was handed a gun
1) that wasn't supposed to be a gun,
2) that he was assured was not loaded with anything harmful,
3) by one of the two persons both hired, and completely and entirely legally responsible, for ensuring those exact facts on that very set,
which he then pointed at the camera and pulled the trigger multiple times,
4) according to the exact script of the scene being rehearsed, known to everyone on the production that day
when ultimatley
5) a round even the subject-matter experts on set
6) who loaded it
7) couldn't tell was a live round,
was fired, two people were shot, and one of them died.

Sounds a bit different when you present all the facts, not just a couple selectively chosen ones, and a leap of illogic as if it were a fact.
It also removes all negligence or recklessness from any of Baldwin's actions, which blows the whole prosecution case out of the water.

Lying By Omission, as you attempted above, is still lying.

If the cook puts poison in your omelet, and you die thereby, the server who handed you the plate - exactly as they are employed to do - isn't arrested for murder, except in the bizarro world you fancy. And a prop weapon at a rehearsal is to be, by custom and practice, no more dangerous an item to handle, point, or trigger, than an omelet.

I can only show you proof of this in 20,000 movies.

So when that doesn't happen, it's still a crime, because of the death and injuries, a fact we have never disputed.

But by using logic, instead of illogic and prejudicial splenic bile, to arrive at a just verdict, the guilty parties are solely, obviously, and inarguably 1st A.D. Dave Halls and weapon handler Hannah Reed. They failed in every aspect of their duties and grossly criminally failed to show any due diligence in the incident. The wonder isn't that they got someone on set killed, it's that it took those two bozos twelve days to do it. Baldwin is criminally guilty of none of that, neither as actor nor one of a group of ten to twelve producers. (You want to go after the Rust production company as an LLC, best wishes with that. They own a dopey script, and half an incomplete and unsold movie. Return at trial even if guilty: $0, + whatever the policy limits on their corporate liability policy will pay, which won't even be enough for plaintiff's legal fees.)

Aesop said...

The jackass prosecutor has already given a no-jail plea deal to Halls, who has already confessed to gross criminal negligence leading to the death of a person.
Unless he admits he was solely responsible, Reed is necessarily similarly guilty, and Baldwin, as a direct result of that guilty plea, must necessarily be innocent unless the prosecutor can prove beyond mere hearsay that Halls and/or Reed informed Baldwin before the incident that a real gun, not a prop weapon, was really loaded with a live round, and they all conspired to shoot Souza and/or Hutchins.

There isn't a shred of proof suggesting anything so wildly recockulous, and even the prosecutor is only alleging negligence. If it's only negligence, Baldwin should necessarily be exonerated, and walk away completely free, as the entire duty for supervision of the weapon and ammunition loading was solely the responsibility of Reed and Halls. But that assumes this case is about facts and evidence, rather than disdain and prejudice.

The prosecutor is manifestly incompetent, as evidenced by getting bitchslapped by the US Constitution immediately after charging ex post facto crimes, let alone charging Baldwin at all. She thus has within her the full ability, being this incompetent, to blow this case entirely on the merits, of which there are none regarding Baldwin's culpability.

Trying to paint the charges as justice is a poor substitute for common sense.

Baldwin may indeed be found guilty anyways, mainly because ultimately the case will be decided by 12 press-ganged potential lackwits as silly and illogical as prosecutor Altwies. One hopes the jury is made of brighter stuff, but that's a total crap shoot.
That's the peril of putting your life and fortune into the hands of twelve people too stupid to get out of jury duty, in a kangaroo court, with a case prosecuted by a demonstrable moron.

If the judge throws the prosecution's case out at the trial's midpoint, which is generally a pro forma motion, that would be a notable case of jurisprudential brilliance.

Personally, I'm hoping Baldwin's lawyers merely wipe the floor with Altwies and her half-assed case, so badly damaging her she leaves the profession, and goes into either the retail service or janitorial occupational fields, assuming she could even handle that.

Walter Coast said...

I completely understand your point of view.

It seems that it comes down to responsibility.

No matter what angle I come from, Alec Baldwin is ultimately responsible.

In the military, someone handing you a firearm checks that it is unloaded and then you check if it is unloaded.

"But he said..." is no excuse.

If your friend hands you an "empty" gun and you point and shoot someone, there is no excuse.

If a guy you paid money to says a loaded gun is empty and hands you a loaded gun and you shoot someone, no excuse.

It is the person pulling the trigger who is responsible.

The kicker is going to be that: there was no rush for time, no ignorance of guns, no unexpected situation, etc.

Alec Baldwin held a gun, cocked a gun, pointed a gun at a person, pulled the trigger, (and then lied that it went off by itself).

All he had to do was spend 2 minutes of his precious time to take a look.

That is the very definition of negligence.

I may deserve to be scolded last time and i may deserve to be scolded this time.

But last time I was right (because the prosecutor is stupid or something).

And you are starting to come to the realization that he may be found guilty (because the jury is stupid or something). So I will probably be right again.

Keep in mind, we are only considering one issue... will he be charged and found guilty... not if he SHOULD be charged and found guilty.

Legally, absolutely

Otherwise, it was an accident based on a culture of carelessness that requires more thoughtfulness to assign blame.

Aesop said...

You clearly don't understand my point of view, or the simplest concepts of basic law.

If Baldwin was supposed to have been handed a real gun, potentially loaded with live rounds, he might reasonably be charged and found guilty. Like if he was at home, or at a gun range, or on a hunting trip.

But the total number of real guns loaded with live ammo on any movie set is always to be ZERO. Total number of live rounds supposed to be fired on any production location is ZERO. So none of the rules for real guns and real ammo firing at real ranges or real people apply here.
Thinking they do is your primary mistake (and many others besides who can't be bothered to think first), and the point from which proceeds a metric fuckton of fallacious nonsensical thinking.

And Baldwin could have looked at the gun - not for two minutes, but ALL DAMNED DAY LONG to no effect - there was NO WAY TO TELL that what were supposed to be all DUMMY rounds had a LIVE ROUND slipped in. Even you or I could look at them until the cows came home, until Hell froze over, and NEVER be able to tell there was a problem.
The idiots who loaded the prop weapon couldn't even tell that (because they'd already violated multiple dozens of explicit safety rules concerning live rounds, including the requirement that all such ammunition be "conspicuously marked", to prevent the exact tragedy that occurred).
That's why the FBI found five OTHER live rounds scattered all over the set, including another one on Baldwin's gunleather. Halls and Reed had no fucking idea ANY of them were present.
And the only way the FBI could tell which rounds were live was by pulling the bullets apart in the lab.

That's not Baldwin's fault, responsibility, job, or criminal negligence to prevent, because he had no duty to exercise any control over any of that, and there's no way in Hell he could have EVER prevented what happened, short of dying of a heart attack the night before.

He thus cannot be negligent for not doing something that was never his responsibility to ever do, and which could not be accomplished in a million years by anyone.

Negligence requires
a) an affirmative duty to do something, and
b) failure to perform that duty with due diligence, as any "reasonable man" would and could have done.
That's the legal standard since EVER, even in Fuckbrains, NM.

So given the inarguable fact that Baldwin had no duty to do anything, he cannot have any negligence, let alone criminal negligence.

It's a logical impossibility, contrary to black-letter law in place for centuries.

Aesop said...

There's no "starting to come to the realization" here.

He's already been charged, by the exact same recockulous leaps of illogic you're making, contrary to all law and jurisprudence in existence since Magna Carta, Roman Law before that, and the Hammurabic Code before that.
[Pro Tip: The current state of affairs, based on such anti-legal jackassery and profound mental retardation, is nothing to write home and brag about.]

Baldwin may even be found guilty, because the jury pool is probably stupider than the prosecutor (which is really saying something).

And if you think that's a good thing, when the law turns on you, using the same illogic and irrational prejudice, I hope you're as happy in the belly of the beast after it chews you up and digests you, having yourself cheerfully set the entire concept of justice on fire, and poured gasoline on the flames, just to flip common sense on its own head.

That's just the idiocy decried in Thomas More's idiot son-in-law in the clip I keep flogging, in the vain hope that shiny pictures might avail where common sense and mental effort fail:


Walter Coast said...

Again, I see your point.

I don't know "how they do it" on a movie set, but in the rest of the world, you are 100% sure the gun is not going to shoot when you pull the trigger; even more-so if you plan on pointing it at someone when you pull the trigger.

This is a real gun, a military gun, a BB gun, an empty Airsoft gun that shot me an inch below my right eye, or a real gun that you claim you thought was a prop gun.

Now I may have caught you in a mistake, or even a fib. Let's see what your experience and opinion is on this.

I believe dummy rounds for movies are clearly marked to distinguish from real rounds except for closeups. A believe this would have been obvious to Alec Baldwin if he had spent fewer than 10 seconds checking.

The one time i was on a movie set, all of the rounds had a clearly fired primer with a reseated bullet.

This was done EXACTLY so the actor could see they were dummy rounds AND they were unfirable.

You are now telling me that Mr. Baldwin couldn't spend few seconds to open the hatch, spin the cylinder, and say, "Hmm, I wonder what will happen when the spur on this hammer falls on an undented primer?"

Conversely, if they were blanks, he could look the other way, spin the cylinder and say, "That's odd that there is an actual bullet in this one."

This is exactly negligance.

In the end, this was 100% preventable if Alec Baldwin spent seconds to take a precaution that is standard in every other place in the world except, as you claim, a movie set.

Just because movie sets do it wrong doesn't mean responsibilty or legal responsibilty goes away.

After considering this further, I believe, if the prosecutor cares, she will show the jury just how quick and easy it is to tell the difference between a bullet that cannot fire and a bullet that requires a bit more scrutiny. She will explain Alec Baldwin's 30 years of gun experience. She will say the only reason a woman is dead is becasue Alec Baldwin is too lazy to spend a few seconds of his precious time to ensure the life of a woman. And, depending on Alec's attitude, she might throw in that he clearly doesn't even care.

The prosecution rests.

How would the defense counter this?

Aesop said...


You're beginning to twig to the actual problem.

On set, dummy rounds, blank rounds, and live rounds are all supposed to be "conspicuously marked", to prevent the exact accidental death that occured on Rust. The whole, sole, entire responsibility to ensure such marking is on the weapons handler/propmaster (that would be Hannah Reed) and that person's assistant/witness (that would be Dave Halls).

Had Reed, with bare basic due diligence required by her position, and black-letter safety regs in place since before she was born, ensured that marking had been properly accomplished for EVERY round in use on that set, live rounds would never have been loaded into Baldwin's gun. It's furthermore not any actor's job, ever, Period, FULL STOP, to verify or "check" such loading, on any movie set in existence since Edison invented the motion picture camera. Checking to ensure proper loads is entirely the responsibility of the weapons handler/propmaster, witnessed by their weapon assistant.
That's. Why. They. Are. Hired. That duty is not dischargeable to any third party, and actors, being world-famous lackwits about everything but acting, are exactly the WORST people to expect to triple check the presumed subject-matter experts on weaponry, on set.

That's why the safety rules are written the way they are, and that's how no Hollywood production following them ever killed anyone in nearly thirty years, until Reed and Halls bumblefucked their way into this job, and ignored virtually every single written and widely published safety reg in existence concerning prop weapons and ammunition on set, and their sole and global incompetence and gross criminal negligence got someone killed.

It doesn't work like this at my house, or yours, on at the firing range, or on a hunting trip, or anywhere or anytime else on the planet, because we're using live guns, and live ammo, and are expressly intending to send lead downrange EVERY SINGLE TIME WE PULL THE TRIGGER, unlike on virtually any motion picture set in history.
That's why movies are MAKE-BELIEVE.

There is NO requirement to use fired primers on dummy rounds. Especially because the camera sees that, and so does the audience, and the cheat is obvious to God and everyone. Frequently, they'll sub in a section of solid metal rod in the primer pocket (I've also seen rubber erasers pounded in, and painted with silver paint) for exactly that reason, and mark the rounds in other manners, and/or SCRUPULOUSLY segregate those dummies from all other rounds.

But that requires a weapons handler or propmaster with 80 more IQ points than the pair on Rust had, combined, between the two of them.
As I told you, and as the prosecutor stated in chargiung documents, even the FBI Weapons Lab, FFS, had to pull all the bullets apart to find all the live rounds on set, and they found FIVE MORE besides the one that killed Hutchins, including another one on Baldwin's gunleather. Fucksticks Reed and Halls didn't know where ANY of these rounds were, or even that there WERE any such live rounds on set, which in and of itself, breaks about three dozen crystal-clear safety rules, all by itself.

Aesop said...

Every single round Baldwin or anyone else looked at SHOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE A FULLY LOADED ROUND, FRONT AND BACK, because the camera was going to be looking RIGHT AT THE PISTOL AND CYLINDER FROM THE WEAPON END. That view was the entire point of the shot they were rehearsing.

We've only covered ALL these points in blisteringly explicit detail about ten times since the incident, so perhaps if you'd read up a bit, you wouldn't need to be led by the hand to the obvious realities on this set, the number of times and places where the fucktards running guns and ammo fucked it up royally, and the multiple and frequently belabored reason why this is exactly 0% Baldwin's problem, and 100% Reed's and Hall's problem and fault, not least of which because Halls has already pleaded guilty to full criminal negligence in respect to failing to do his part of that job.

That being incontrovertible fact, there are only three logical possibilities, considering all bare chances:
1) Halls acted completely on his own, and is fully the only one responsible. And has gotten off with a plea bargain and a wrist slap of probation, and no jail time.
2) Halls and Reed were equally guilty, and she's looking at the ass end of 18 months in prison for manslaughter, being just as fucktarded as Halls, but coming to trial without a leg to stand on or a plea deal on offer.
3) Halls and/or Reed conspired to shoot people, and they told Baldwin they'd deliberately loaded a live round, and he went along with that, knowingly. (Current odds on that: logically possible, but in reality, non-existent as a possibility: A billion to ZERO.)

Regardless of whether it's #1 or #2, Baldwin is completely innocent of any wrongdoing.
He had no duty to do anything he didn't do, he did exactly what he was employed to do, two fucktards loaded a live round in a real gun, and told him it was harmless, and there was no way for him, me, you, or ANYFUCKINGBODY ON THE PLANET to know any different without pulling every bullet apart before every single scene, and then putting them back together, like they do on NO SET EVER in 100 fucking years of motion pictures..

You'd have to prove #3 beyond any reasonable doubt, and more than just he said/she said levels of evidence. In fact, you'd probably have to have Baldwin on audio or videotape conspiring to murder in order to prove it. In which case this should be a murder trial, not a negligent manslaughter trial, which is why that's not even on the table.

Without #3, there's no way to charge Baldwin with negligence, nor find him guilty of anything but being the last guy to be holding the grenade that others pulled the pin from, following black-letter criminal law, in Bumfuck NM, or anywhere else. Negligence requires an affirmative duty, that was neglected. Baldwin had no such duty. End of trial.

The only way to keep getting this wrong after that much explanation requires a diagnosis of profound mental retardation. The prosecutor obviously qualifies.
Stop bringing what you think you know about what happened to this case, and look at the actual facts as presented, and you cannot help but conclude the prosecutor is a total moron, and Baldwin should never have been charged because he hasn't broken any laws, not "because he's an actor", or "because there are two tiers of justice", but because we don't knowingly charge obviously innocent people with crimes, and we don't charge people with crimes just because we don't like them.

Aesop said...

If you're going to keep playing this game, read up on the elements of negligence required to find guilt:

The duty, in this case, was entirely on the weapons handler and her assistant, exactly as has been the case on more than 40,000 motion pictures and hundreds of thousands of episodes of television, with a grand total of two firearms-related deaths in over a century.

The safety rules, like a parachute, only work when you use them.
Halls and Reed broke nearly every single written safety rule in two safety bulletins (about 70-80 specific duties, if you're counting) dealing solely with movie weapons and ammunition, in less than 12 days on that movie.
(They both have a documented pattern and track record on productions of being fuck-ups with weapons, btw.)

Baldwin broke none.
Whatever seventeen kinds of asshole he is about weapons and the Second Amendment, no one has ever accused him of screwing around with weapons or safety in general on a movie set, not even once, on 40 pictures where he handled weapons on camera.

Within hours of the news, everyone in Hollywood knew, beyond any doubt, who it was who had fucked up, without even asking.
All they were missing was the specific details.
We have those now too.
And everybody in Hollywood was right, and nearly everybody who supposedly "knows guns" is dead wrong.

Anybody who tries to paint this as in any way Baldwin's fault is talking out his ass, from sheer deliberate global ignorance, as we tried to tell people from the time it happened through right now.

If Baldwin ever pulls a gun IRL and shoots someone negligently or without cause, book him and charge him.
But on that set, on that day, doing exactly what the script called for the actor to do, he's absolutely and totally blameless, in any criminal or civil liability sense.

Stupidity and splenic bile are a poor excuse for a prosecution.
But right now, it's all anyone has.