Santa Fe First Judicial District Attorney Mary Carmack-Altwies and special prosecutor Andrea Reeb announced their decision Thursday morning in a written statement shared with media.
First assistant director David Halls has already agreed to plead guilty for the charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon.
"After a thorough review of the evidence and the laws of the state of New Mexico, I have determined that there is sufficient evidence to file criminal charges against Alec Baldwin and other members of the 'Rust' film crew," Carmack-Altwies said in a statement. "On my watch, no one is above the law, and everyone deserves justice."
I hope the commie asshole gets the death penalty
ReplyDeleteYall hate everybody and everything. Why is that?
DeleteHope yall get some help.
Nah, we just hate liberals that run their mouths.
DeleteHannah Gutierrez-Reed will be sentenced to 6 years, and Alec Baldwin will be required to teach an acting class....
ReplyDeleteTo the homeless migrants.
Delete"Hannah Gutierrez-Reed will be sentenced to 6 years, and Alec Baldwin will be required to TAKE an acting class...."
DeleteF.I.F.Y.
Ed
Better…TAKE an acting class😬
DeleteNever mind, Ed beat me to it
DeleteMoney talks. Woke celebrity walks.
ReplyDeleteProbably, but it's going to cost him a pretty penny.
DeleteThey'll put him in the same cell as Jussie Smollett.
DeleteCouldn't have happened to a nicer guy...
ReplyDeleteIt’s about Goddamned time.
ReplyDeleteTherein is the lib MO
DeleteCrime exposed.
Make sure LOOOONG investigation
See if the public forgets/quits caring
Charge accordingly/drop charges
SSDD
ch
I believe that I read that this movie was being made on the cheap. So that explains why they hired a 24 year old armorer. No matter how experienced she was, that is just not old enough for someone to have the ability and pull to stand up to big and powerful Hollywood types and tell them no when it comes to things like taking certain guns out for target shooting after hours with live rounds, which should never have been within a mile of the area.
ReplyDeleteI think that Baldwin was either the producer or executive producer, and so he was responsible for hiring the young lady. So he did that on purpose, to save money. He knew damn well how a movie set works, and how guns are handled during a movie shoot. And how normal armorers typically act, with the ability to shut down production of the entire movie set, no matter the cost to the production team, if some issue with any type, be if finding out that members of the crew were taking guns out after hours, which should have been locked up securely, or if live rounds were found on set, even one single round.
No doubt, the armorer was not given the power to either shut down the set, or to even lock guns and ammo, etc. up with the access to them being limited to only her or her designee, during only times set by her, for either the actual filming or rehearsal. I think that she was set up to fail, but ultimately she was still responsible for her mistakes, as was Baldwin. I will be interesting to see what the outcome of this whole mess is.
My wife asked me when will this go to trial, this summer? I told her it will be well over a year, at the least. But my guess is that both parties will plead guilty to lesser charges, and serve no actual time.
24 years old is old enough...I mean, how fricking stupid do you have to be to simply verify if a gun is loaded with blanks or real bullets? It's no like the ammunition looks the same if it is real or blank. A 5 year old child who has been shown the difference once, could tell the difference and verify if a gun is loaded properly or not.
DeleteI don't think Baldwin is guilty in the sense that he knowingly shot and killed someone, but he is guilty as hell for hiring idiot liberals (redundant) to manage his firearm props. Had Baldwin hired a conservative this would never have happened, but nope...Baldwin most likely had a NO CONSERVATIVE hiring policy...and for that, he is guilty and must pay.
I do not think it was Gutierrez-Reed who actually handed the gun to Baldwin, but the assistant director who already cut a deal with the prosecutor. And of course 24 and experienced in the firearms world was enough to know if the gun was safe or not, but only if she actually touched the gun. And that ignores the fact of did she have the power to actually shut down the production on the set for safety reasons? Looking up her fee, she was to be paid less than 8,000$ for the entire project.
DeleteWhile I am not sure if that is typical of the pay scale for an armorer on a film set, it might be, but having the assistant director hand the gun to the actor using the gun is not typical, but not completely unheard of. And normally, the only two people who have the ability to yell cut are the director and the armorer. On a film set with a budget of 7 million dollars, being paid less than 8k, and being pushed around by a big personality like Alec Baldwin, as well as his rather large number of producers for such a low cost film, I doubt that she had the power that a typical armorer should have. So I think that she was in over her head.
Baldwin is not being charged with knowingly shooting and killing someone, but for involuntary manslaughter. And this actually has nothing to do with liberal or conservatives. There are likely some very liberal armorers that are very good at their jobs. And we know that there are some very conservative armorers and firearm trainers in general who are not just unqualified, but dangerous, and should not be allowed to teach anyone about guns or gun safety, ever. I don't like Baldwin at all, but the final result will come down to facts and fairness, both to the legal system and to those who don't have the resources that a rich person has. That the two people being charged are on both ends of the spectrum will be a very good example for us to watch, and will play heavily into the judgement on both sides. I still doubt that either case goes to trial.
I doubt Baldwin will plead guilty, he seems too narcissistic and egotistical to understand his role and\or listen to his attorneys.
DeleteHe's apparently ignored his attorney's advice already with the interview he gave on TV. Either that or his attorneys are dumbasses as well.
DeleteThe armorer wasn't even allowed on the set due to COVID protocols (and to save on her pay). She was required to leave the guns in an unlocked cabinet off-stage and then go off the clock. The assistant producer picked up a gun from the cabinet and brought it to Baldwin. So expect the case against the armorer to be dismissed - if not before the trial, right after the prosecution presents witnesses (possibly with the judge calling the prosecutor into chambers and questioning his sanity).
DeleteNormally actors receive a gun directly from the armorer, so if it's loaded wrong, it's clearly the armorer's fault. Some actors check the gun, and some are discouraged from this because they're idiots and more likely to screw something up than find an error. It's not known if either the AP or Baldwin checked the load in the gun, knew how to tell a live round from a dummy round or blank, or even knew how to clear the gun.
But the way they were handling this, did the AP bring Baldwin the correct gun? Was it tampered with after the armorer left, e.g. by someone loading live rounds and doing some target practice during lunch break?
the guy is a asshole. anyone who has handle guns KNOWS you never point them at anything
ReplyDeleteyou do not want to destroy. also. he was lazy and stupid. you always check every weapon you pick up and check it yourself. like most actors he thinks he is just better than most of us.
what they do not understand is they are just dancing clowns really.
Not sure if the "Don't point you gun at anything you don't want to destroy" policy applies here. Thousands of movies have been made where the actor shoots a gun at people and it's acceptable to do. However, the issue wasn't pointing and shooting at someone, but verifying or hiring someone competent to verify that the gun was a safe prop, and not really a gun capable of killing. The prop master/armorer was the real guilty party here, and because of vicarious liability (employer responsible for the actions of his employees under his control), Baldwin is guilty too. Maybe if Baldwin wasn't a liberal gun-hating twat who only hired other liberal twats, and instead hired a conservative/republican with just an ounce of gun knowledge, this would never have happened.
DeleteExcept that they weren't filming at the time, he was playing with the gun practicing his crossdraw IN THE DIRECTION OF OTHER PEOPLE. So yes, it DOES apply.
DeleteAs far as I can tell, the script for the scene Baldwin was rehearsing only called for filming the crossdraw, not for pointing the gun anywhere nor pulling the trigger. I would not be surprised if trial testimony proves the arrogant a**hole was _playing_ with the gun.
DeleteThe armorer isn't responsible, because they weren't following the normal procedures. She wasn't allowed on the set, and she wasn't present when the assistant producer pulled a gun out of an unlocked cabinet to hand to Baldwin. She was responsible for putting a properly loaded or unloaded gun into that cabinet, but there's no chain of custody showing that the gun Baldwin received was that gun, nor that it hadn't been tampered with.
Baldwin can't get a "fair trial" in AZ. There aren't any of his peers, i.e. other asshole actors, to summon for jury duty.
ReplyDeleteNemo
I feel like his defense will be based around "accidental discharge." If they want to, it shouldn't be hard to demonstrate that it's basically IMPOSSIBLE to discharge that gun accidentally.
ReplyDeleteThe FBI tests already determined the trigger had be pulled for the gun to fire.
DeleteThere's two ways of conveying that to the jury. The agent can rely on authority and just tell the jury that his examination proves that the gun was not defective and would not fire without pulling the trigger - whether the jury accepts that depends on how well they did at finding 12 jurors who are totally ignorant about the last 30+ years of the FibbingBI's history. Or he can go through an hour of slides, measurements, and video tape of test shooting to show how he examined the gun and made that determination, which most of the jury will be unable to understand. So it's possible the defense will create reasonable doubt about pulling the trigger.
DeleteBut if the prosecution is doing its job, that won't matter for a manslaughter charge, for there will also be overwhelming evidence about negligence and/or recklessness by Baldwin both as a producer and an actor - he tolerated (if not encouraged) an attitude of bypassing safety rules. When there were two or three previous negligent discharges, he didn't halt production until the cause was found and corrected. Whether or not he could do that as the producer, he certainly could have refused to perform or rehearse until he knew the set was safe - it would be an odd contract that didn't give a lead actor that right, and regardless of the contract, if it got down to a civil lawsuit, no jury is going to find against the person insisting on safety! So Baldwin shares responsibility for it being _possible_ to have a live round in the gun, for accepting a gun under those circumstances without checking it himself, and for that gun being pointed at a person. The jury may not know beyond a reasonable doubt that he also pulled the trigger (as we who know guns better do), but that would only matter if he was on trial for murder rather than manslaughter.