Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absent new evidence I do not believe Alec will be found guilty. Likely will be a hung jury.

I think the new evidence is the experts all agreeing that the gun was functional and the trigger was pulled. Balwdin is on tape insisting it misfired.

I don't get it. The gun was always functional? (Although temperamental, it had misfired previously.)

Where did you obtain this information?

The gun was extensively tested by the FBI. They 'broke' the gun in the process of trying to make it fire without the trigger being pulled - it would not.

I think you are incorrect about there being misfires on the set of Rust. A misfire involves a faulty firearm or faulty ammunition.

There were previous negligent discharges on the set of Rust before the one that killed Hutchins. That is the reason that a number of the crew walked off the set in protest and shooting was delayed by several hours the day Hutchins was killed.

[Anonymous]

Guilty or not, Alec's smugness after the first couple days of shock wore off is extremely offputting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I caught covid and was out sick so watched most of the trial and have been watching the last few days on recordings of Court TV in the evening after work.

I’m a former defense attorney and prosecutor so bring that perspective.

I’m not surprised the jury found her guilty and didn’t appear to deliberate long. She had an excellent defense attorney who did his best to raise reasonable doubt, but she was clearly negligent in her duties to a reckless degree. She was getting high in the evenings and she was doing all kinds of crappy work on set, the prosecutor started her closing showing a series of photos of actors and stunt people pointing guns at each other while holding weapons on set and she was right there and did nothing. Even *if* there were no live rounds on set you are always supposed to follow gun safety rules and she didn’t enforce them on set - whether because she was hungover or high or whether she suffered the same syndrome many young women in power do, she was people pleasing and didn’t want to be the bad guy calling folks out for not following the training it doesn’t matter, she was negligent in a lot of ways before a live round found its way into that revolver and then through Halyna Hutchins’s chest. The day of the shooting she had hours to check the dummies before the scenes were shot and she obviously didn’t do it or she would have caught the live round.

And while I previously defended Baldwin I now believe after hearing the testimony of several firearms experts that he DID pull the trigger and he is also guilty. I’m interested to see if he goes to trial after his lawyers watched the state’s case here and saw the evidence that was presented and will be presented in June/July at his trial if he goes. I suspect he’ll be found guilty if he does take it to trial.

It was a totally senseless death, I feel so sorry for her son and husband.

If the gun had properly been loaded with blanks, wouldn't the scene require him to pull the trigger? Wasn't he just doing what he was supposed to do?

The whole point of using blanks rather than no bullets and adding in effects later is to film the discharge from the muzzle. The director had him placed so that he was aiming at the camera, for maximum visual impact.

Whether he thinks he pulled the trigger or thinks he didn't and the gun just went off (as is supposedly impossible but as the gun had already done the day before), I don't see that it matters.

Again, I watched the trial testimony - and you clearly didn't.

The scene didn't call for him to pull the trigger. It didn't call for him to point the gun at the cinematographer and director standing behind her.

A number of firearms experts testified that the gun doesn't fire without the trigger being applied, and it takes very little pressure once the gun is cocked which Baldwin admitted doing. There is footage of Baldwin drawing the weapon and having his meaty finger within the trigger guard - very reasonable for the jury to assume he did the exact same thing when he shot and killed the cinematographer.

The FBI firearms experts subjected the gun to extensive trauma to see if it would fire without the trigger being pulled - it would not.

I don't know if he was screwing around or what, only he knows that and he'll likely never be truthful about it. But his actions meet the definition of involuntary manslaughter under the sub B of the New Mexico statute.

I didn't watch the trial testimony, no. He wasn't supposed to aim the gun at the cinematographer? He was supposed to aim it somewhere else?

The gun had misfired earlier, it had gone off without being touched. The gun was known to be a problem. Known by the armorer (who was found guilty). Known by the first assistant director (who pled guilty). Known by Baldwin? I don't know and they apparently didn't show that at Hannah's trial.

You are making this up, or you read it somewhere where someone else made it up. If there was any truth to this assertion, it would have come into evidence in Gutierrez's trial - it did not. The FBI testing lab beat the crap out of the gun trying to make it fire without pulling the trigger - it would not.

The gun was perfectly functional and it functioned as it was designed to when someone pulled the trigger with a live round loaded into it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guilty or not, Alec's smugness after the first couple days of shock wore off is extremely offputting.

You have muddled the timeline. He was shocked and horrified and took months and months away before you saw any "smugness".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guilty or not, Alec's smugness after the first couple days of shock wore off is extremely offputting.

You have muddled the timeline. He was shocked and horrified and took months and months away before you saw any "smugness".

Halyna Hutchins died tragically after being shot by Alec Baldwin on October 21, 2021. Baldwin went on ABC on December 2, 2021 insisting he was without any fault and had no remorse because it wasn't his fault.

Some of us would consider that a very rapid amount of time to transition from emotional devastation to smugness.

Especially since he lied and said he didn't pull the trigger and he stated that he knows better to point a gun at anyone in any case whether loaded or not - yet a live bullet loaded in that gun went right through Hutchins's chest and into Souza's shoulder, so it's a fair assumption that the gun was pointed at them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I caught covid and was out sick so watched most of the trial and have been watching the last few days on recordings of Court TV in the evening after work.

I’m a former defense attorney and prosecutor so bring that perspective.

I’m not surprised the jury found her guilty and didn’t appear to deliberate long. She had an excellent defense attorney who did his best to raise reasonable doubt, but she was clearly negligent in her duties to a reckless degree. She was getting high in the evenings and she was doing all kinds of crappy work on set, the prosecutor started her closing showing a series of photos of actors and stunt people pointing guns at each other while holding weapons on set and she was right there and did nothing. Even *if* there were no live rounds on set you are always supposed to follow gun safety rules and she didn’t enforce them on set - whether because she was hungover or high or whether she suffered the same syndrome many young women in power do, she was people pleasing and didn’t want to be the bad guy calling folks out for not following the training it doesn’t matter, she was negligent in a lot of ways before a live round found its way into that revolver and then through Halyna Hutchins’s chest. The day of the shooting she had hours to check the dummies before the scenes were shot and she obviously didn’t do it or she would have caught the live round.

And while I previously defended Baldwin I now believe after hearing the testimony of several firearms experts that he DID pull the trigger and he is also guilty. I’m interested to see if he goes to trial after his lawyers watched the state’s case here and saw the evidence that was presented and will be presented in June/July at his trial if he goes. I suspect he’ll be found guilty if he does take it to trial.

It was a totally senseless death, I feel so sorry for her son and husband.

If the gun had properly been loaded with blanks, wouldn't the scene require him to pull the trigger? Wasn't he just doing what he was supposed to do?

The whole point of using blanks rather than no bullets and adding in effects later is to film the discharge from the muzzle. The director had him placed so that he was aiming at the camera, for maximum visual impact.

Whether he thinks he pulled the trigger or thinks he didn't and the gun just went off (as is supposedly impossible but as the gun had already done the day before), I don't see that it matters.

Again, I watched the trial testimony - and you clearly didn't.

The scene didn't call for him to pull the trigger. It didn't call for him to point the gun at the cinematographer and director standing behind her.

A number of firearms experts testified that the gun doesn't fire without the trigger being applied, and it takes very little pressure once the gun is cocked which Baldwin admitted doing. There is footage of Baldwin drawing the weapon and having his meaty finger within the trigger guard - very reasonable for the jury to assume he did the exact same thing when he shot and killed the cinematographer.

The FBI firearms experts subjected the gun to extensive trauma to see if it would fire without the trigger being pulled - it would not.

I don't know if he was screwing around or what, only he knows that and he'll likely never be truthful about it. But his actions meet the definition of involuntary manslaughter under the sub B of the New Mexico statute.

I didn't watch the trial testimony, no. He wasn't supposed to aim the gun at the cinematographer? He was supposed to aim it somewhere else?

The gun had misfired earlier, it had gone off without being touched. The gun was known to be a problem. Known by the armorer (who was found guilty). Known by the first assistant director (who pled guilty). Known by Baldwin? I don't know and they apparently didn't show that at Hannah's trial.

I am chocked she did not get more jail time. She was reckless.

She hasn't been sentenced yet.

I read 18 months

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I caught covid and was out sick so watched most of the trial and have been watching the last few days on recordings of Court TV in the evening after work.

I’m a former defense attorney and prosecutor so bring that perspective.

I’m not surprised the jury found her guilty and didn’t appear to deliberate long. She had an excellent defense attorney who did his best to raise reasonable doubt, but she was clearly negligent in her duties to a reckless degree. She was getting high in the evenings and she was doing all kinds of crappy work on set, the prosecutor started her closing showing a series of photos of actors and stunt people pointing guns at each other while holding weapons on set and she was right there and did nothing. Even *if* there were no live rounds on set you are always supposed to follow gun safety rules and she didn’t enforce them on set - whether because she was hungover or high or whether she suffered the same syndrome many young women in power do, she was people pleasing and didn’t want to be the bad guy calling folks out for not following the training it doesn’t matter, she was negligent in a lot of ways before a live round found its way into that revolver and then through Halyna Hutchins’s chest. The day of the shooting she had hours to check the dummies before the scenes were shot and she obviously didn’t do it or she would have caught the live round.

And while I previously defended Baldwin I now believe after hearing the testimony of several firearms experts that he DID pull the trigger and he is also guilty. I’m interested to see if he goes to trial after his lawyers watched the state’s case here and saw the evidence that was presented and will be presented in June/July at his trial if he goes. I suspect he’ll be found guilty if he does take it to trial.

It was a totally senseless death, I feel so sorry for her son and husband.

If the gun had properly been loaded with blanks, wouldn't the scene require him to pull the trigger? Wasn't he just doing what he was supposed to do?

The whole point of using blanks rather than no bullets and adding in effects later is to film the discharge from the muzzle. The director had him placed so that he was aiming at the camera, for maximum visual impact.

Whether he thinks he pulled the trigger or thinks he didn't and the gun just went off (as is supposedly impossible but as the gun had already done the day before), I don't see that it matters.

Again, I watched the trial testimony - and you clearly didn't.

The scene didn't call for him to pull the trigger. It didn't call for him to point the gun at the cinematographer and director standing behind her.

A number of firearms experts testified that the gun doesn't fire without the trigger being applied, and it takes very little pressure once the gun is cocked which Baldwin admitted doing. There is footage of Baldwin drawing the weapon and having his meaty finger within the trigger guard - very reasonable for the jury to assume he did the exact same thing when he shot and killed the cinematographer.

The FBI firearms experts subjected the gun to extensive trauma to see if it would fire without the trigger being pulled - it would not.

I don't know if he was screwing around or what, only he knows that and he'll likely never be truthful about it. But his actions meet the definition of involuntary manslaughter under the sub B of the New Mexico statute.

I didn't watch the trial testimony, no. He wasn't supposed to aim the gun at the cinematographer? He was supposed to aim it somewhere else?

The gun had misfired earlier, it had gone off without being touched. The gun was known to be a problem. Known by the armorer (who was found guilty). Known by the first assistant director (who pled guilty). Known by Baldwin? I don't know and they apparently didn't show that at Hannah's trial.

I am chocked she did not get more jail time. She was reckless.

She hasn't been sentenced yet.

I read 18 months

She's been remanded to custody pending sentencing, at which point she faces a maximum of 18 months prison and will get credit for time served for however much time she is remanded before sentencing - the state asked for a date in May and the defense wanted one sooner, but a date wasn't determined at the time of the verdict being read and her being remanded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.


Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.

Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.

Would a movie set ever have a live bullet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.

Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.

The protocols always require people handling weapons to treat them as though they are loaded. Adding in various scenarios for consideration doesn't change this baseline standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Guilty or not, Alec's smugness after the first couple days of shock wore off is extremely offputting.

It's not about personality. He can be an arrogant jerk but that doesn't make him guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.

Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.

The protocols always require people handling weapons to treat them as though they are loaded. Adding in various scenarios for consideration doesn't change this baseline standard.

I'm a gun owner and I wouldn't convict him. Ensuring that there were only dummy rounds in that gun was the armorer's responsibility.