The DA said criminal charges have not been ruled out.
Evidence has been sent to the FBI in Quantico.

If a reasonable person is expected to verify a gun is unloaded, and the local prosecutor has said that there is no precedent, arguing that an actor should be expected to exercise a lower duty of care seems like an argument that a defense would raise not an argument that would influence the decision to proceed with a case

If you hire the least expensive people, you'll get the least qualified and least professional people. Hannah was clearly over her head. She was so young, she probably caved to others' demands on the set (i.e. allowing coworkers to use the guns for playtime). Sounds like the AD was also loosey-goosey with protocols.

It all adds up to tragedy and liability (both criminal and civil).

It'll be interesting to hear "dueling experts" on the standard of care expected by an actor. Just my guess is that the actor isn't expected to check the gun himself, even though in real life, nonactor gun-users would be expected to check the barrell.

I think AB will not have criminal liability. Hannah and the AD will be found criminally liable. AB will have some civil liability, not because he pulled the trigger, but because he was (if he was) involved in hiring people who were known to be reckless and unqualified.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Laws don't apply to these people.

Np. So you actually believe that Alec intended to murder her? You don't believe in accidents?

NP, I totally think it was an accident, but even accidents have consequences, right?

Yes, sometimes people are injured or killed by accidents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Laws don't apply to these people.

Np. So you actually believe that Alec intended to murder her? You don't believe in accidents?

NP, I totally think it was an accident, but even accidents have consequences, right?

Anonymous wrote:Laws don't apply to these people.

Np. So you actually believe that Alec intended to murder her? You don't believe in accidents?

Anonymous wrote:Both the assistant director and the armorer had been fired from movie sets for mishandling guns.
Dave Halls was fired from Freedom's Path for after a crew member was injured by a firearm unexpectedly discharging.

Somehow this must be Alec Baldwin's fault.

Both the assistant director and the armorer had been fired from movie sets for mishandling guns.
Dave Halls was fired from Freedom's Path for after a crew member was injured by a firearm unexpectedly discharging.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The argument is going in circles but some of these analogies are just not on point. I can make up others for the other side.

" I can't go to court and say, "my buddy told me it was unloaded right before I killed that person" and be let off the hook."

The AD wasn't AB's "buddy." It was part of his job to check the gun and he has admitted he didn't do it right.

Say someone went to a firing range for a lesson. He was paying for the lesson. The firing range hired the instructor. The instructor checked the gun and told the student it was empty and they were just going to practice first without using ammunition. The student pulled the trigger--we don't know if AB did--and the gun was loaded and someone got hurt.

Are you still going to hold the student responsible?

Yes. Because rule #1 is that you never point a gun toward a person that you aren’t trying to kill, whether or not you’re planning to pull the trigger. Pointing the gun, and pulling the trigger makes it worse. This is drilled into you during gun safety instruction. Even if you have checked the gun yourself and you think it is unloaded, much less when you’re relying on someone else. There can be a round stuck somewhere you can’t see it, and the consequences of being mistaken are too dire. That why shotguns are carried in a field “broken” so they can’t fire, even when they aren’t loaded.

Film sets are doing something inherently risky when they discharge guns on a film set. That’s why the protocols are *supposed* to be so strict. If it is found that the protocols weren’t followed, that negligence and maybe criminal recklessness.

Did AB ever receive instruction from someone who really knew guns? Or just from random props people on movie sets?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She looks awful here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/amp/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

She got the job only because of her father, not her skill.

I suspect that she invented the story that her dad trained her from a young age. She doesn't seem comfortable with weapons at all. If her dad allowed her to use his name or if he claimed to train her, he has some serious explaining to do.

+1. The whole story about not knowing how to load blanks is just bizarre. I grew up in a hunting family, but I haven’t touched a gun in decades, and I could do it.

Anonymous wrote:The argument is going in circles but some of these analogies are just not on point. I can make up others for the other side.

" I can't go to court and say, "my buddy told me it was unloaded right before I killed that person" and be let off the hook."

The AD wasn't AB's "buddy." It was part of his job to check the gun and he has admitted he didn't do it right.

Say someone went to a firing range for a lesson. He was paying for the lesson. The firing range hired the instructor. The instructor checked the gun and told the student it was empty and they were just going to practice first without using ammunition. The student pulled the trigger--we don't know if AB did--and the gun was loaded and someone got hurt.

Are you still going to hold the student responsible?

Yes. Because rule #1 is that you never point a gun toward a person that you aren’t trying to kill, whether or not you’re planning to pull the trigger. Pointing the gun, and pulling the trigger makes it worse. This is drilled into you during gun safety instruction. Even if you have checked the gun yourself and you think it is unloaded, much less when you’re relying on someone else. There can be a round stuck somewhere you can’t see it, and the consequences of being mistaken are too dire. That why shotguns are carried in a field “broken” so they can’t fire, even when they aren’t loaded.

Film sets are doing something inherently risky when they discharge guns on a film set. That’s why the protocols are *supposed* to be so strict. If it is found that the protocols weren’t followed, that negligence and maybe criminal recklessness.

Media keeps describing her father as the 'legendary' armorer.

Am I the only one who didn't know that armorers on movie sets could be legendary?? Who was this guy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She looks awful here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/amp/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

She got the job only because of her father, not her skill.

I suspect that she invented the story that her dad trained her from a young age. She doesn't seem comfortable with weapons at all. If her dad allowed her to use his name or if he claimed to train her, he has some serious explaining to do.

I could be wrong but I read somewhere that she was raised by her mother and added Reed to her last name when she started working.
I can't believe she did any training with her father.
I'm willing to bet she's self-taught.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She looks awful here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/amp/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

Who exactly hired her?

She got the job thru nepotism? Cool cool

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She looks awful here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10130717/amp/The-armorer-set-Rust-Baldwin-killed-cinematographer-pictured-home.html

She got the job only because of her father, not her skill.

I suspect that she invented the story that her dad trained her from a young age. She doesn't seem comfortable with weapons at all. If her dad allowed her to use his name or if he claimed to train her, he has some serious explaining to do.