Tag Archives: Alec Baldwin

Alec Baldwin Charges Dismissal: Not What Some Think

July 14, 2024 Carl Bussjaeger 2 Comments

Sheila has covered the Trump assassination attempt, so I’ll just say for now — pending new information — that I don’t think this will be the last attempt before November.

What I am here to talk about is charges against Alec Baldwin being dismissed with prejudice.

Some people see this as the exoneration of Baldwin.

We told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and told you, and explained to all comers, in excruciating detail, how Baldwin was not legally responsible to any whit for the shooting on the set of Rust, explaining the safety rules and the chain of culpability using metric fucktons of pixels and internet bandwidth.

Sorry, Aesop; that isn’t what happened. Charges were dismissed for a deliberate Brady violation by prosecution: hiding evidence which defense seemed to believe to be exonerating. Defense had moved for this dismissal, and I find that odd.

Up to now, all the publicly available evidence and forensic reports indicated to me that Baldwin was guilty. Now, suddenly, new evidence appears. Two years after the shooting, a third party turned over some ammunition that he thought might be associated with the case. Without a trial with testimony, I don’t see how it is relevant. It might be, but I don’t know. The case against Baldwin was based on his own — multiple — safety violations; not on where the live ammunition came from. It wouldn’t matter where the live round came from if only Baldwin had followed just one of the four rules.

At opening statements Wednesday, prosecutors alleged Baldwin violated the “cardinal rules of firearm safety” by pointing the prop gun at Hutchins and pulling the trigger.

Assuming it is relevant, I would have thought defense would want to continue the trial and get the actual exonerating testimony on record, along with a formal acquittal. That would clear Baldwin’s name.

Instead, the defense effectively suppressed all the evidence — not just the new ammo evidence but everything else prosecution was prepared to present — themselves, at least so far as the public is concerned. No trial, no evidence presented. If defense actually thought the evidence was overwhelmingly exonerating, why move for dismissal for a Brady violation (something you might do before the trial starts) instead of moving for a directed verdict of acquittal (the normal thing, once a trial in in progress)?

Now Baldwin is going to have to live with having killed a woman, and having everyone look at him and think, You never were acquitted; you forced an end to the trial on a technicality. Why?

For that alone, I imagine a lot of actors and crew will be hesitant to work with Baldwin anywhere in the same county.

[best infommercial voice] But wait! There’s more! Baldwin’s defense:

“This was an unspeakable tragedy, but Alec Baldwin committed no crime. He was an actor, acting, playing the role of Harlan Rust,” attorney Alex Spiro said. “These ‘cardinal rules’ are not cardinal rules on a movie set.”

Would you want to be anywhere near the guy who thinks safety rules don’t apply on set? Not even the film industry’s own safety standards.

I also wouldn’t want to pay the insurance premiums for any film that includes Baldwin. Assuming any film with Baldwin can even get insurance coverage now.

Courts, guns, Hollywood, Law

I Respectfully Disagree

January 20, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 7 Comments

I like Aesop’s, of the Raconteur Report, style; most of the time. I often like what he has to say. But in the matter of Alec Baldwin’s negligent killing of Halyna Hutchins, I must respectfully disagree.

“According to industry wide safety regulations, whose sole and entire JOB is it, on production sets, going back to before anyone of the RUST set was born, to handle, load, supervise, and ensure the total safety and inability of prop weapons to cause death or injury to result on set from the use of any such prop weapon, barring a blatant violation of the safety rules?”

Yes, the armorer is hired for that — supposed — expertise. That’s why almost-armorer Gutierrez-Reed is also facing a manslaughter charge. But…

Screw “industry wide safety safety regulations.” Try basic firearms handling safety rules, upon which those regs should be based.

ALL GUNS ARE ALWAYS LOADED
NEVER LET THE MUZZLE COVER ANYTHING YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO DESTROY
KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER TIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET
BE SURE OF YOUR TARGET (and what is beyond it, like your director)

Observe that none of those rules is prefaced with “Expect someone else to make sure that…” In the end, the final responsibility rests with the person holding the gun: Baldwin. Those rules aren’t all that hard. I have known six year-old children who successfully learned and faithfully followed them.

Of course, Baldwin’s defense uses Aesop’s argument. His lawyer said:

“Mr. Baldwin had no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun — or anywhere on the movie set. 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.”

When I’m cleaning a firearm, I have “no reason to believe there was a live bullet in the gun,” but I still check.

Imagine for a moment that this was not a firearm-related death. Instead, pretend that Baldwin was framing that shot in preparation for a scene in which he drives a car. Note: not filming an action scene; framing in preparation for a scene to be filmed later.

Hall hands Baldwin the keys and says, “Cold car.”

Baldwin, for some reason not called for in framing, starts the car and puts it in gear. (cocks the hammer, past half cock to full cock)

Baldwin turns the steering wheel towards Hutchins. (points the gun)

Baldwin hits the accelerator and runs down two people, killing one. (pulls the trigger)

Baldwin then exclaims that it’s not his fault because no one told him there was gas in the car.

And for fun, imagine he did this after after years of pontificating about “car safety.” (“gun safety,” gun control)

That last point isn’t even about karma, comeuppence, or irony. It’s a legal point; one I’d raise in court if I were the prosecutor: Over the course of years, Baldwin has presented himself as sufficiently knowledgeable about firearms, safety, and law to lecture me about how to handle my own firearms. Yet now he claims innocence due to an abysmal lack of knowledge and common sense regarding those very things; a lack so great that he needs an entire crew to protect himself — and everyone around him — from his own imbecilic ignorance.

One more time; if I were the prosecutor, I’d present clips from interviews, and social media post of Baldwin telling everyone else how to do it right, and ask him, “Mr. Baldwin, for years you’ve claimed you know better on firearm safety than everyone else. Why are you now claiming to be dumber than a six year-old in need of constant adult supervision?”

Sorry, Aesop. I do see your point. But based on Baldwin’s interviews and disclaimers, police reports, and forensic reports, I have to disagree with you on this one.

Baldwin is responsible for what he did. Not solely, but responsible.

Added: Even if Baldwin is that lethally irresponsible and foolish, another fact remains: He was also a producer for this film, meaning he was one of the people responsible for hiring competent personnel to protect everyone from his own stupidity.

Added, 2: Santa Fe District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies:

“It is incumbent on anybody that holds a gun to make sure that it is either not loaded or to know what it is loaded with,” she said in an interview with The Associated Press. “And certainly then to not point it at someone and pull the trigger. That’s where his actor liability, we think, comes in.”

She also emphasized that while Baldwin is to be charged as the man with the gun in his hand, his role as a producer, and at least partial responsibility for the lax conditions that led to his having a loaded gun, were a consideration in deciding to bring the charges.

Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar. He could really use the money, what with ISP bills, site hosting and SSL certificate, new 2021 model hip, and general life expenses.
Gab Pay link
(More Tip Jar Options)

Courts, Law, Violence-Enabling Victim Disarmers

Baldwin To Be Charged With Involuntary Manslaughter

January 19, 2023 Carl Bussjaeger 1 Comment

It took more than a year, but killer Alec Baldwin is finally facing an appropriate charge.

News release from DA Mary Carmack-Altwies on charges against Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed
“Rust” actor and producer Alec Baldwin and armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed will each be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Halyna Hutchins on the film’s Santa Fe County set in 2021.

Assistant director David Halls has signed a plea agreement for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon. The terms include a suspended sentence and six months of probation. A copy of the plea agreement will be available after it has been filed with the court.

As I’ve explained before, involuntary manslaughter — a felony — appears to be the most appropriate charge for Baldwin. I don’t think he had any intent (required for a murder charge) to kill Hutchins, but he willfully broke every firearms safety rule there is.

Given Gutierrez-Reed’s actions and inactions, involuntary manslaughter also sounds right. Based on police reports, I think they could also nail her on tampering with evidence, but it doesn’t appear she’s been charged with that.

In fact, Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed are facing two, alternate charges. And that worries me just a bit.

The first charge can be referred to simply as involuntary manslaughter. For this charge to be proved there must be underlying negligence. Under New Mexico law, involuntary manslaughter is a fourth-degree felony and is punishable by up to 18 months in jail and a $5,000 fine. This charge also includes the misdemeanor charge of negligent use of a firearm, which would likely merge as a matter of law.

The other charge is involuntary manslaughter in the commission of a lawful act. This charge requires proof that there was more than simple negligence involved in a death. This is also a fourth-degree felony punishable by up to 18 months in jail and up to a $5000 fine.

With the misdemeanor “negligent use” charge included, this might give Baldwin some room to plea bargain. I hope, for the sake of justice, that this doesn’t happen.

Halls’ misdemeanor negligent use charge is about right for him. He seemingly “merely” handed Baldwin a loaded weapon without checking it. Stupid; but he wasn’t primarily responsible for the status of the firearm (that would start with the idiot armorer), and he wasn’t the lethal lunatic who pulled the ttrigger: Baldwin himself.

I know many people would like to see Baldwin face a more serious murder charge, seeing how often he’s run off at the mouth about guns and other people; but involuntary manslaughter, as defined in New Mexico law, best fits the circumstances and more much more easily proved in court than murder.

Barring a generous plea deal for a Hollywood name, this — and the civil suits — is the best shot at something resembling justice.

guns, Law, So Much Stupid!

Alec Baldwin: Spin, Spin, Spin

August 18, 2022 Carl Bussjaeger 3 Comments

Yes, I’m a little late to the game. I wanted to be sure I had all the relevant reports from officialdom. I think it’s generally better to be accurate, than rapidly off target.

Alec Baldwin and his attorney are spinning like tops, trying to counter the — expected — damning report on the forensic examination of the firearm Baldwin used to kill Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin has previously suggested that Rust Assistant Director Dave Halls and Armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed are to blame for the shooting. He claims that they declared the gun “cold” when it was actually “hot,” and he has accused them of not doing enough checks.

Baldwin also had possession of the gun. What of his responsibility to do a check, or to handle the firearm in a responsible manner?

“The FBI report is being misconstrued,” Baldwin’s attorney said. “The gun fired in testing only one time — without having to pull the trigger — when the hammer was pulled back and the gun broke in two different places.”

“The FBI was unable to fire the gun in any prior test, even when pulling the trigger, because it was in such poor condition,” the lawyer added.

Except that is definitely not what the FBI report says.

Item 2 is a .45 Colt (.45 Long Colt) caliber F.lli Pietta single-action revolver, Model 1873 SA (Californian), Serial Number E52277, which functioned normally when tested in the Laboratory.

“Unable to fire […] because it was in such poor condition” is not “functioned normally.”

Additionally, Item 2 has a hammer with a fixed firing pin and does not contain any internal safety mechanisms to prevent the firing pin from striking the primer of a chambered cartridge, such as a transfer bar or hammer block. This is consistent with normal operation for a single-action revolver of this design.

Again, normal operation; not failed to fire due to poor condition. I suspect that the shyster is basing his false claim that the gun failed to fire on this single, out of context sentence, from the FBI report.

This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

Fuller context: “this testing” refers to the “Accidental Discharge Testing” section of the report. “This testing” failed to obtain a discharge without pulling the trigger when the weapon has at both quarter cock and half cock. Because the sear stops functioned normally.

At full cock, the FBI was able to cause the weapon to discharge without a trigger pull… only by pounding on the hammer so hard that the sear broke.

With the hammer in the full cock position, Item 2 could not be made to fire without a pull of the trigger while the working internal components were intact and functional. During this testing, portions of the trigger sear and cylinder stop fractured while the hammer was struck. The fracture of these internal components allowed the hammer to fall and the firing pin and detonated the primer. This was the only successful discharge during this testing and it was attributed to the fracture of internal components, not the failure of the firearm or safety mechanisms.

The sear functioned normally (yeah, that phrase again) until the FBI managed to break a previously normally functioning firearm in forcing a failure.

This report doesn’t exonerate Baldwin by demonstrating a firearm in poor condition. It condemns the lying bastard by proving the gun was working properly while in Baldwin’s criminally negligent hands.

Baldwin, and too many excuse-making media outlets make a big deal of the Medical Examiner’s report seemingly clearing Baldwin of culpability by declaring the incident an accident. Sure enough, that word appears on the report summary page (page 35).

MANNER OF DEATH: Accident

Alone and out of context. Let’s read the rest of the report for the details of that one word. Page 37:

Death was caused by a gunshot wound of the chest. Review of available law enforcement reports showed no compelling demonstration that the firearm was intentionally loaded with live ammunition on set. Based on all available information, including the absence of obvious intent to cause harm or death, the manner of death is best classified as accident.

I’ll grant that Baldwin probably had no intent to cause Hutchin’s death, or to wound Souza. That leaves a lot of room for negligence, which makes it involuntary manslaughter on Baldwin’s part.

Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Ignoring, thus violating, every basic rule of firearms handing is most definitely “without due caution and circumspection.”.

Baldwin negligently failed to check the gun he was handling. Because why would an allegedly responsible adult do what little kds successfully learn, when he has babysitters to do it for him?

He negligently pointed the loaded firearm at two human beings. Because he’s only an allegedly responsible adult, and someone supposedly told him to do it.

He negligently fired a normally functioning gun at those two human beings. Because who knew that if you hold the trigger down while pulling the hammer back, the normally functioning loaded gun would function normally. Because what allegedly responsible adult could expect such a normal occurrence?

Others may share some additional culpability in this senseless killing, particularly the so-called “armorer.” Why was live ammo on a movie set at all? Why did the armorer not properly examine her supposedly dummy and blank rounds to be sure of what she had? Why was any round — dummy, blank, or live — loaded into a gun for a rehearsal that didn’t call for a discharge? Why was anyone but the “armorer” handing Baldwin a firearm?

But if Baldwin had followed a few basic rules, the possible failures of others still would not have mattered. Is he a responsible adult? I’m dubious, because his “I didn’t know the gun was loaded” sounds remarkably like the act of a three year-old.

In the final analysis, despite any additional culpability on the part of others, Alec Baldwin is responsible for the negligent killing of Halyna Hutchins. He failed to check the weapon. He pointed it at two people. He discharged a normally functioning firearm at them.

Alec Baldwin killed Halyna Hutchins.

All that remains to be seen is if New Mexico authorities will even do the right thing, or protect Baldwin, and future film production income for the state. I’m also dubious of the right thing happening, since Baldwin wasn’t arrested and formally charged months ago.