I think the "plinking after hours" theory is your best bet. Remote location, some crew members claimed to have spent the night rather than go back to hotel, alcoholic beverages, etc.

Sometimes "location filming" can turn into frat parties.

Fair enough, Craig...but how did one get into Baldwin's gun?

Isn't the answer to that question key to where most of the blame lies?

I think the theory is that the afterhours plinking was with his gun. So, filming with blanks, filming shuts down, drinking and shooting commences, the next day, filming starts back up, but no one checked the gun that had been using live rounds during the prior evenings fun and games and still had live ammo in it.

okay - but still some person brought live rounds to the area to be used for plinking or some other reason. Who is that person?

Baldwin certainly shares in the responsibility, but I maintain that the armorer is the one who is ultimately at fault. Baldwin had no training did he? Does the production company require such training?

Whomever provided the live rounds for plinking also has to answer for that.

But the armorer is the one responsible even if the producer is the one who handed the revolver to Baldwin. The producer should not have been able to access the weapon.

The armorer's attorney stated that she showed and demonstrated to the AD the gun and all the chambers with dummy cartridges in it before handing it over to him.

If that is the case, how can she be at fault? Sounds like she did her job.

Remember this rehearsal was not scheduled. The armorer was not informed it was even taking place.

And the usual cams that are set up to monitor a set were not in place/working - so unless you were inside that church - you wouldn't even know the gun was going to be handled by anyone at that time.

Hard to put the blame on the armorer but at this point too much speculation and little facts to reach a hard conclusion....

AB has definitely had some type of training with guns but it concentrated on handling a weapon in a realistic way on camera as opposed to actual firearms training.

And it was the 1st AD, (assistant director), who handed him the gun, not a producer. This is significant because that person is an employee with specific duties and responsibilities and a producer would be a boss.

Is there some invisible force field around movie sets that protects actors from responsibility when handling firearms?

I want one (a force field not a movie set).

Very likely, BUT never should happen with real guns under the control of the Prop Master/Armorer.

What else would he say? You don't take that for the truth, do you?

I've been sued before and I can tell you that there are more lies in a courtroom than there are at a fishing camp. Or used car lot. In fact, I'd believe what I heard on a car lot before a courtroom.

It still amazes me that some folks believe that it is acceptable to have different sets of firearms rules depending upon the circumstances. What does not surprise me, however, is that if someone out there is going to be haughty and arrogant enough to believe they can make their own firearms rules, it would be Hollywood.

I liken firearms rules to the laws of physics. Not quite as inviolable, but pretty damn close. There are some folks who believe that the laws of physics don't apply to them. They may actually get away with practicing this belief for awhile, but ignore them long enough and they will, inevitably, catch up with them.

Same with firearms rules. The most basic of them have been developed over centuries, with millions and millions of people providing their input and experiences, some good, some bad, under every set of circumstances imaginable. And some most of us never would have thought of.

Some of this experience is, of course, somewhat hard won. People died. Adjustments have been made as a result. It's all pretty damn solid by now. Not "laws of physics" solid, but I would put it in a close second place. Violate them, and people get hurt, or they get killed. It really is that simple.

"Enhancement "...

I thought no body was above the law... LoL! Leftists

Imho the person who brought AB the gun and said cold is responsible...

At least 3 or 4 people are responsible imo...

Him
The armorer
Whoever brought live rounds on the set and put them in that gun
AB

Found an article from back in November of 2021 that provides information about how the live rounds may have found their way onto the set.....and then into the firearm......

https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-investigators-live-rounds-alec-baldwin-1235122384/

Included in the article is this little nugget.....

And this:

Set up a camera first and you are GTG.

If I handed you a gun and told you it was "cold", would you point it at your daughter, cock the hammer, and pull the trigger? Without checking it yourself?

One step further - would you ever do that, under any circumstances whatsoever, with any real gun? That's a rhetorical question, of course, because we both know the answer.

... what Jeff said.

AB seems to be a narcissistic fool who knows nothing about the real world.

And why should AB know anything about the real world? He doesn’t live in it, work in it or care about it. His life and his work is make-believe. His wife has a Spanish accent she picked up in Massachusetts.

Cut him some slack. He knows what’s best for you.

You and I have both seen gun shop bozos pick up a gun and hand it to another bozo they didn't know without checking it too.... at least I have. We know better, but every bozo on a movie set doesn't know what we know about guns either. They have been part of our lives forever ..... but probably not for many Hollywood types .... especially actresses imo. Not disagreeing with you, but it is a different world than we live in. So I still say several people were responsible and negligent ... jmho.

DH should be up schitts creek.

Who else had keys to the firepower? Who else could have slipped in a bullet to whack the poor girl and make it look like an accident....

I don't think it is the armorers fault due to her not on set and handing out the revolver...

Then the firearm should not have even been on the set imo..... that WAS her responsibility and job. Was she simply incompetent, coerced, intimidated, etc. ... I dunno, but she failed.... along with a few others.

Here is an interview my friend Dutch did for Variety. He covers a bit of "Armorer Protocol" here...

https://variety.com/2023/film/news/rust-armorer-alec-baldwin-hannah-gutierrez-reed-dutch-merrick-1235495918/?fbclid=IwAR0OvFxbOeW9wBAWKh5-nDcv2c3Vdr3WrGRKPmsoUYlEB1Uh7y6ijlqwFi4

There's more to the story ig. The trial should be an amber heard sling feat.

We have enhancements in Texas. You have a prior felony conviction then the next can be charged as the next higher felony level. Or if you have 2+ felony convictions, you are a 'habitual', and the minimum sentence is 25 years. We don't mess around here.

However, enhancements can be waived by the prosecutor as part of a plea agreement. I had a habitual waived two weeks ago and guy got 3 years on an agreement. Last March, I was on a jury and the guy was habitual. He got convicted and elected Judge for sentencing. Judge gave him 40.

I don't know if I'd waive the enhancement on this case just to get a plea. Eighteen months isn't a lot left for leverage on a case, especially with a high profile defendant that may take it to trial anyway.

I'm surprised that you got seated on a jury, aren't you a prosecutor? :confused:

EDIT: Or defense lawyer...can't remember which...either way, I'm surprised.

Defense (but I've done both over my career). I was shocked. I was number 43 out of 70 something and the last person selected.

Afterwards I spoke with the DAs and they said where I was seated they couldn't see me or my responses during jury selection. I was giving ample answers to get kicked off.

Sadly, I was an alternate so I had to sit there for the entire trial but didn't get to deliberate. The judge allowed me to sit in on deliberations but gave me strict instructions to keep my mouth shut. I had always known crazy things go on in jury rooms but this was an education for sure.

I was thinking Baldwin would not have liability as an actor, but I take that back. I wasn't thinking that he took the gun from the Dave Halls. I believe he should have refused, based on what Craig and Hugh have been saying. I could see him thinking he didn't pull the trigger when he really did. I wouldn't expect my memory to be good in an incident like that. I also don't think him saying he didn't pull the trigger hurts him much. I think he's simply mistaken. Or lying.

From my point of view, Dave Halls shouldn't have gotten a plea deal, but I'm no expert on the situation. He stepped in and incompetently took the place of the armorer, which he shouldn't have been able to do. He totally failed in the responsibility that he took and Halyna Hutchins is dead as a result.

He pulled the trigger, full stop. Inadvertently, most likely but he pulled it. Probably in the action of pulling back the hammer, if his finger was on the trigger.

I agree. But the safety protocols are supposed to allow for such a mistake.

I'm fairly certain the DA has had the weapon tested by an FBI firearms expert and it works perfectly.

The problem for Baldwin is that the standard of proof is negligence or not exercising due care. So regardless of whether he knew it was loaded with a live round, he pointed it at a human being and pulled the trigger. That is 100% negligence or lack of due care.

His out of court statements to 60 Min and George Steffapoopalos will probably come back to haunt him. "I didn't pull trigger" will be directly contradicted by the FBI expert.

The other thing I've been thinking about is potential jurors. This is Santa Fe, which is pretty liberal. But at the same time it is New Mexico, which I believe may give a juror that won't be swayed by the celebrity and may just hold him to a higher standard. I'm thinking about people like Rip on Yellowstone. Just real salt of the earth type people that will call a spade a spade even if they are for Medicaid expansion.

I think the FBI tested it and it actually broke during the testing and would fire without pulling the trigger, but I'm confident Baldwin pulled the trigger and probably unintentionally. Nobody will be able to prove he pulled it intentionally.

It doesn't seem like the set up for this rehearsal would protect against that gun being pointed at anybody. So, who's responsibility is the set up of the rehearsal? Clearly, it should have been a rubber gun.

The trial has already begun — here. Don't you think you ought to pick a jury? Oh, right, everyone here is a jurist. Well, I think we have testified enough. Time for final arguments.

oops
"Baldwin's deviation from known standards, practice and protocol directly caused the fatal death of Hutchins," the documents state.

"By not receiving the required training on firearms, not checking the firearm with the armorer, letting the armorer leave the firearms in the church without being present, deviating from the practice of only accepting the firearm from the armorer, not dealing with the safety complaints on set and/or making sure safety meetings were held, putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used, pointing the firearms at Hutchins and Souza, and the overall handling of the firearms in a negligent manner, Baldwin acted with willful disregard for the safety of others and in a manner which endangered other people, specifically Hutchins and Souza.

That's super damning. I can't imagine how you could wiggle out of that unless any of it could be proven incorrect. The fact that someone died of a gunshot wound seems to be absolute proof that the statement is 100% correct.

Take the deal, Al.

If he doesn’t, he deserves having a few years tacked on because…stupid.

Tragic as it is... they both will be scolded. You know.... some BS handgun training.
He and she did not mean to kill anyone. What these incompetent gun holders did will be
excused for being stupid but no malice.
Meanwhile without any remorse.... a life is lost.

The silver lining to this is that Baldwin, the POS he has always been is now retired from
bothering us with his arrogant acting career.

JFI If a movie is being shot in Australia an actor can not touch a firearm (real or fake) without the appropriate "licence".
To get that licence they have to complete a gun handling and safety course. There are no exceptions to this rule.

I would have assumed it would have been the same in the US???

- If not why isn't it? :confused: