Your thoughts on Alec Baldwin being charged for killing Halayna Hutchins on set of "Rust"?
I think it's B.S.
--Michael D. Clarke
I think there was a second shooter.
MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Your thoughts on Alec Baldwin being char...
I hope her family are coping with their loss.
As for Baldwin, what he’s been charged with is involuntary manslaughter, which is what happened. He shot the gun that killed her.. so.. I guess it’s up to the prosecution to prove negligence.
Again though, it’s the kid who lost a mother people should be concerned with, not the theatre of a celebrity trial.
I think the armorer will get the brunt of it, regarding being at fault. As for Baldwin, there might be a "chance" he may get convicted of something.
We believe because Alec is an actor -- a gun goes off during filming on set -- that it was indeed a not-at-fault accident; but we live in Clown World: anything and everything is possible, and the least plausible is the most likely to occur; meaning, Baldwin may get convicted harshly (counter-intuitively stating).
A third person, who was charged (for something) accepted a plea deal for a lighter sentence. I wonder if the production will use this guy against the armorer and/or Alec Baldwin? Most likely.
IMHO the armorer is less at fault than the producers, it was the film's producers that gave the armorer a second job handling props and decided that a gun safe was an unnecessary expense, so they created a job where it was impossible for the armorer to keep the guns secure. She was a fool to accept the job under the circumstances, because any mistakes could have and did leave her liable and unemployable, but it was her first job and everyone sucks it up and accepts bad conditions on their first job.
Baldwin is, of course, one of the film's producers, and that's part of the reasons I was hoping he'd be charged, his responsibility goes all the way through this tragedy. I hope the other producers all get charged with criminal negligence as well, but they probably won't. The local DA is willing to take one high-profile case to trial and face a "dream team" of expensive lawyers, and won't have the budget for ten or twelve more high-profile trials.
It’s ridiculous. I can see charging the armorer with negligence since it was his responsibility.
When it originally happened the husband of the woman even said it wasn’t Baldwin’s fault. But now he’s changed his tune because he’s looking for a payout.
Greed is the root of all evil.
--Michael D. Clarke
Bingo. I remember this, too.
shareMy question is this: In modern film making is it common practice to aim actual firearms loaded with blanks at other people and pull the trigger?
It is, and you have to wonder why.
With all the improvements in CGI and prop making technology, how as nobody come up with some type of dummy gun that is completely incapable of firing a projectile?
Nothing out there that can just simulate recoil, and then add the muzzle flash effects later on?
"I think it's B.S."
The only thing that's BS here is how inept most people are these days when it comes to determining who is at fault for something. It's as if I'm living in the Twilight Zone where everyone has been brainwashed with a "pass the buck" mentality. Logically speaking, how could anyone other than the person handling the gun possibly be responsible for handling it safely?
In any case, I replied to the same type of topic a few days ago, so here it is again:
I've said all along that if the law were applied correctly, Baldwin would be charged with negligent homicide, but I doubted that would ever happen because of all the corruption and ineptitude in the legal system.
Mr Baldwin's lawyer, Luke Nikas, called the charges "a terrible miscarriage of justice".
"Mr Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun - or anywhere on the movie set," Mr Nikas said. "He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges, and we will win."
Baldwin violated the fundamental rules of gun safety, which don't get waived simply because you're on a movie set, and that constitutes negligence:
1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)
3. Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target. This is the Golden Rule. Its violation is directly responsible for about 60 percent of inadvertent discharges.
4. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.
Rule #2 prevents anyone from getting shot even if the gun goes off because you violated other rules. Hollywood ignores those rules all the time and then when someone gets shot they use the fact that they always ignore gun safety rules to attempt to justify them ignoring gun safety rules (lol).
Also, there is no option to offload your responsibility for safe gun handling onto someone else, regardless of that someone else being a "professional." If you pick up a gun you're responsible for handling it safely, no exceptions. If you don't want to accept such a responsibility, don't pick up a gun in the first place. share
Baldwin was also the producer and was directing that scene. He most certainly should be charged with manslaughter, and let the court decide if he's guilty due to negligence.
share