Rust (2 Viewers)

[Winston T. Boogie]

Prosecutors analyze and determine the viability of cases for a living. If they don't think they have a viable case then they don't go to trial.

This is correct and typically the bar for bringing a case is slam dunk conviction. However, they don't always do it that way and that is not to imply incompetence but rather perhaps they just want to press charges. Typically, they would weigh the evidence and precedent, other cases like the one they are bringing and the outcomes they had. If there is a similar case that ended in a conviction, that precedent would lead them to want to move forward and bring the charges. If there is no such case or cases, well, then it becomes more difficult because these things often rely upon and refer to previous precedent.

I can't think of a case like this where an actor was charged and convicted of accidentally shooting and killing someone on a set. So, not sure if there is precedent for this case. I do not think there are politics at play here, which some may suggest, as the prosecutor is female, a Democrat, and a lesbian (this is what was reported)...which seems to indicate she likely does not hold anything about Baldwin against him.

According to what George posts above, and statements by the prosecutor, it would seem they feel they have a very strong case against him for negligence which is the basis for that fourth degree manslaughter charge. You have to prove negligence on the part of the parties you are charging. It is a lower bar for a lower charge.

Based on what George posted, it looks like they have a weak case against him for the handling of the gun, at most it could be claimed he failed to test fire the weapon, but, and this is where Baldwin looks like he could be in trouble, they seem to have evidence he knew all about the previous props misfiring issues before the shooting occurred and they appear to have evidence that he ignored these issues.

The other part of prosecuting something like this when you think you have a strong charge and then a weaker charge or several weaker charges, you charge all with the idea that the weaker charges will get dropped in exchange for your strong charge getting prosecuted and or forcing the party charged to make a plea deal...which is the same as a conviction just allowing for the lesser sentence.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

In this case, I actually think that Baldwin's celebrity is working against him. If this was just some unknown character actor, I don't think they'd be up on charges right now. I think the DA is using Baldwin as a way to further their future political aspirations. Even when they lose the case, they can still say that they're so tough that they take on the "Hollywood elite". And you're clearly a cynical guy (and I say that as a fellow cynic) so I'm surprised that you don't think that the DA might have ulterior motives in charging a famous and divisive person like Alec Baldwin.

There is definitely a possibility that they are making a bigger deal out of this because Baldwin is a well known actor. However, that is a double edged sword. I think most likely they are making a big deal out of it because the workplace safety standards seem to have been pretty well ignored and it looks like they may have some pretty good evidence of this.

People focus on the shooting here and like to talk about Baldwin and the "gun" but reading all this stuff seems to indicate that is playing a minor part in what is taking place. The really horrible stuff, the stuff that looks very damning, all took place before the shooting. In this case Baldwin is probably in way more jeopardy for what he did not do before the day of the shooting than what he did on the day of the shooting.

 

[ScottHM]

...but since baldwin is so popular and controversial he is the scapegoat.

This implies that Mr. Baldwin bears no responsibility for the accident. He was one link in the chain that led to this shooting and none of those handling the firearm are scapegoats.
---------------

 

[ScottHM]

The really horrible stuff, the stuff that looks very damning, all took place before the shooting.

Oh obviously. The shooting was the least horrible thing that happened on the Rust set.
---------------

 

[Chris Will]

For the sake of both the prosecution, and the accused, I think this gets pled down. Bad look for Alec to plead not guilty, and I doubt a jury would unanimously convict.

Seriously? I think people need to take emotions out of it, pleading not guilty in any situation is not a bad look, it's how the justice system works. The not guilty plea still leaves the door open of a new plea deal being reached down the road, or taking your chances in a trial. A guilty plea would forfeit his right to a trial and jump straight to sentencing.

I guess I just have never understood this idea that pleading not guilty "looks bad" because it is what you have to do to defend yourself in court and keep your options open. You can't plead guilty and then ask for a trial to defend yourself, you can't plead guilty and then ask for a better plea deal down the road. That's not how it works.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Oh obviously. The shooting was the least horrible thing that happened on the Rust set.
---------------

No, the shooting was the most horrible thing that happened, what led up to it though is truly awful and should not have happened.

I find it fascinating that the prosecutor says that the most important question, how did live ammo get on the set, will probably never be answered. That's pretty odd because it is kind of a major part of how this happened. This means they are not attempting to address this in their case. Strange.

Second, the gun is said to have been loaded by the armorer in the presence of the AD Hall just minutes/seconds before he walked it up to the set and gave it to Baldwin telling him it was safe. Hall cut a deal and will testify for the prosecution and I imagine one of the big things he will testify about is he watched the armorer load the gun.

Third, based on the way this all went, yes, it is a blame pie kind of thing where they are attempting to show who did what that caused the shooting. In that pie I think the lawyers have the biggest piece of the pie assigned to the armorer because they have everything they need to convict her including the witness to her loading live ammo into the gun just before it was given to Baldwin.

Baldwin's lawyers have all kinds of evidence that he is not responsible for the shooting, all kinds of evidence he was a victim, and all kinds of ways for him not get much of the blame pie for how he handled the gun. They have a far larger issue explaining how if he knew about the previous incidents and did nothing and appeared to take safety on the set lightly, that this behavior was not negligent. Which is the only standard they have to prove in this case.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

I also think they have to ask and answer the question "Why was the gun loaded at all?" they were just rehearsing and working out what the shots would be. He was never meant to fire the gun during the rehearsal. It was to block the scene, decide his movements, and figure out what looked best. They were not filming any of that so shouldn't the gun have been empty? Why did she load the gun? Why did Hall watch her load the gun and not say anything?

 

[Malcolm R]

Then the further question would be why was he even holding a gun in rehearsal? He could have just made a "finger" gun and said "bang" for rehearsal purposes.

 

[ScottHM]

Baldwin's lawyers have all kinds of evidence that he is not responsible for the shooting, all kinds of evidence he was a victim,

If someone you trusted handed you a gun and told you it was unloaded would you be willing to point it at them and pull the trigger? Because if the answer is "no" I don't see how you could relieve Mr. Baldwin of culpability. If your answer is "yes" then I hope you never touch a firearm, prop or otherwise.
---------------

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

Then the further question would be why was he even holding a gun in rehearsal? He could have just made a "finger" gun and said "bang" for rehearsal purposes.

Well, to that question I would guess the answer would be they wanted to see what it looked like with the prop. I think there are many things we don't know yet that would get asked if there is a trial. I am not sure there will be as all the parties are likely to be discussing all this as they move toward that.

 

[Winston T. Boogie]

If someone you trusted handed you a gun and told you it was unloaded would you be willing to point it at them and pull the trigger? Because if the answer is "no" I don't see how you could relieve Mr. Baldwin of culpability. If your answer is "yes" then I hope you never touch a firearm, prop or otherwise.
---------------

Absolutely not, but that is not the point either. Each side has a presentation of evidence. We've not heard nor seen all of it. Based on what George posted, if we are to examine just that, it looks like there is not much of a case that Baldwin is negligent in the actual handling of the prop.

And again, if I was handed a gun outside of a film set, there is no way in hell you do anything with it before you check it. That's not even up for debate. The question is about the protocol on a film set, what protocol they had been following, and how an actual loaded gun ended up in an actor's hand. Just seconds really after it left the armorer's hands.

Keep in mind, Scott, that that if you ask the questions:

Should you be able to trust the armorer on a film set?

Should you be able to trust the AD on a film set?

The answer, even according to the protocol George cited, is yes. They are both responsible for safety of the people on the set and the props. Due to that fact, Baldwin's lawyers have an out.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Also, do.people really believe that celebrity and highly paid lawyers have no bearing on the outcome of a case? Do people really think a poor nobody in the same circumstances as OJ Simpson wouldn't have ended up getting a life sentence while he got acquitted?

Do you really think most of us on this forum for the most part don't agree with your assertion that a poor person is at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to the legal system? Come on!

 

[jayembee]

If I'm Baldwin's defense attorney and the Prosecutor uses the line that 'Every actor is responsible to make sure every bullet in a prop gun isn't a live round...." I show this clip, and say: Inspect ALL of these Prosecutor!

If you'd showed that clip, the Prosecutor would simply answer, "I don't have to. That happened 30 years ago, and nowhere near my jurisdiction." The other thing is that, from that clip, there's no way of telling if anyone was on that set other than Arnold and the cameraman. And Arnold was probably shooting at a wall with no one even remotely in the line of fire.

So, it's not quite the same as a situation where Baldwin lifted a gun, pointed it in the direction of another human being, and pulled the trigger.

 

[Johnny Angell]

Oh obviously. The shooting was the least horrible thing that happened on the Rust set.
---------------

If one thinks, as I do, that Baldwin is not at fault, then the most horrible thing that happened was bringing live rounds onto the set. Or hiring that armorer. The true fault is the MOST horrible thing, IMHO. Now if we only agreed on the the original sin.

I also think they have to ask and answer the question "Why was the gun loaded at all?" they were just rehearsing and working out what the shots would be. He was never meant to fire the gun during the rehearsal. It was to block the scene, decide his movements, and figure out what looked best. They were not filming any of that so shouldn't the gun have been empty? Why did she load the gun? Why did Hall watch her load the gun and not say anything?

This is something that had not occurred to me. I get they want to use a prop but why load it all?

 

[Johnny Angell]

If I were an actor on a film set (yeah, right) before Rust I probably would have taken the word of the professional who handed me the gun. If I was an actor on a film set (yeah, right, again) after Rust, I would say to the professional handing me the gun, “show me that it is safe.”

That’s real Monday morning quarterbacking.

 

[ScottHM]

And again, if I was handed a gun outside of a film set, there is no way in hell you do anything with it before you check it.

I'm not sure the state of New Mexico allows people working on a film to be more careless about gun handling than they do the general public. You seem to be saying that just because film sets are supposed to follow rigorous gun safety protocols that certain individuals working on them aren't liable for the same level of caution as everyone else. Why should that be the case?
---------------

 

[ScottHM]

If one thinks, as I do, that Baldwin is not at fault, then the most horrible thing that happened was bringing live rounds onto the set.

Really? I would think it was producing a western on such a low budget that safety protocols went out the window.*



*(Not really. I think the most horrible thing was toying around with a gun without first personally checking that it was unloaded.)
---------------

 

[Malcolm R]

Why should that be the case?

As has been stated repeatedly, because the production is paying specific professionals knowledgeable about firearms and gun safety to be on the set taking care of all these things. You have to have a certain level of faith that they're doing their jobs properly when dealing with actors who are not trained militia.

If that responsibility falls to the actors, there's no reason to hire firearms professionals or on-set armorers.

 

[ScottHM]

As has been stated repeatedly, because the production is paying specific professionals knowledgeable about firearms and gun safety to be on the set taking care of all these things. You have to have faith that they're doing their jobs properly when dealing with actors who are not trained militia.

Yes, it's been said repeatedly and it makes as little sense as ever. An actor doesn't need "faith" when they can be shown that a gun is unloaded and/or safe for them to operate within the required parameters.

If that responsibility falls to the actors, there's no reason to hire firearms professionals or on-set armorers.

You speak as if the responsibility can rest only with the armorer or only with the actor, when in fact it rests with everyone who handles the firearm. We're not talking about union rules or workplace guidelines, we're talking about state laws pertaining to firearms safety.
---------------

 

[JoeStemme]

If you'd showed that clip, the Prosecutor would simply answer, "I don't have to. That happened 30 years ago, and nowhere near my jurisdiction." The other thing is that, from that clip, there's no way of telling if anyone was on that set other than Arnold and the cameraman. And Arnold was probably shooting at a wall with no one even remotely in the line of fire.

So, it's not quite the same as a situation where Baldwin lifted a gun, pointed it in the direction of another human being, and pulled the trigger.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees. The point is that these big shootout scenes happen all the time (as no doubt Baldwin's attorneys will have witnesses for), and that it's folly for folks to believe that every actor sits down and counts out each and every bullet in such a scene examining it for whether it's a live round or not (not that every actor would even know in the first place).
As someone who has actually handled weapons on sets for over 3 decades, I can say that it is not practical. Do I wish Baldwin had? Of course, but, it will be very easy to show that this is far from the norm in production. Further, it is absolutely critical to re-emphasize that this was a rehearsal. There should have been absolutely NOTHING in the gun at the time. There was no reason for Baldwin to even think that he had to check for rounds. None at all. That's on the A.D. and the Armorer. You NEVER hand a loaded (with even blanks) to an actor for a mere rehearsal. NEVER.