r/progun • u/FortKnoxII • 7d ago
Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' case officially over, prosecutor withdraws appeal News
https://ew.com/alec-baldwin-rust-case-over-appeal-withdrawn-8766323115
u/awfulcrowded117 7d ago
A brady violation? Good lord, how incompetent was this prosecutor?
I mean ... nothing else was going to happen the instant the prosecution decided to destroy their own case. Baldwin being a lying scumbag doesn't change that.
82
u/overcookedfantasy 7d ago
Prosecutor is on the same team as Baldwin. Clear as day.
35
u/awfulcrowded117 7d ago
It does seem likely, but don't ever rule out incompetence when dealing with people. That goes triple when dealing with the government
8
1
u/Dco777 7h ago
I think the prosecutor thinking "How much publicity and acclaim will I get out of prosecuting a Hollywood celebrity?" was the reason why they acted like they did, than "Protect another famous liberal" as motivation.
I kind of think whoever blew this case up with the Brady Material screwup has torpedoed their prosecuting career chances and political future completely.
9
u/royboh 6d ago
A brady violation? Good lord, how incompetent was this prosecutor?
Probably about average.
The defense combed over every single document for any possible discrepancy and found something that wasn't (properly?) catalogued.
Such lapses are shockingly common. But most people don't have huge law firms that have more resources than the prosecution, so they are left undiscovered.
8
u/awfulcrowded117 6d ago
Did you read the article? This wasn't something improperly catalogued, the prosecutor didn't turn over evidence because they personally felt it wasn't relevant, despite it being directly related to the case. That isn't some minor average clerical error that lawyers had to comb through shit to find. The evidence came up in court and the defense had never seen it before. That's gross incompetence.
1
u/threeLetterMeyhem 6d ago
It's both. It was improperly catalogued. That came out in court. I personally think it was miscatalogued on purpose.
But the prosecutor also didn't think it was relevant anyway. The evidence was related to the source of the live ammo, but the source didn't matter for the charges presented. Baldwin wouldn't have had any knowledge of the source of the ammo regardless, and the source was irrelevant to whether he acted negligently.
3
u/awfulcrowded117 6d ago
Obviously, the judge disagreed, and since that information came to light as a direct result of the investigation, it should have been turned over anyway.
Also, it could have been used by the defense to create doubt by suggesting the ammunition was tampered with maliciously. Pretty long shot, but between that and how it was uncovered it's relevant enough to be covered by discovery.
3
u/threeLetterMeyhem 6d ago
From what I understand, the department was trying to hide that a former officer was cheating on his wife with the armorer. Their attempt to hide that by burying the evidence (evidence that didn't really matter to the charges, as a side note) cost them the case.
3
u/awfulcrowded117 6d ago
Doesn't matter if it helps the case, it was evidence specifically relating to the case and investigation, disclosure is prosecution 101.
1
0
u/threeLetterMeyhem 6d ago
Andrew Branca has a great video on YouTube about why the judge made a mistake and this shouldn't have been a Brady violation. I used to agree with you, but it changed my mind. Definitely with a watch, even if it doesn't change yours.
0
u/legendz411 5d ago
Random YouTube influencers opinions don’t come close to a judges.
1
u/threeLetterMeyhem 5d ago
No shit, obviously this judge's ruling will stand and some youtuber doesn't have any actual say in it. But, Branca's a well respected self defense lawyer more than some "random youtube influencer." Not that he needs me to defend him on the topic, but his content is worth checking out if you care about being pro gun, pro self defense, and want to be prepared for how shit is likely to go down in court. Or not. How you all spend your time doesn't really make a difference to me, it was just a suggestion lol
And... Judges get shit wrong all the time. It's why we have an appelate system. Otherwise we'd all be perfectly happy with lower court judges ignoring the 2A all the time, right? If you think this decision was correct simply because a judge made it, you're doing yourself a disservice by not trying to understand multiple angles of a nuanced situation so you can have an actual, informed opinion.
33
u/melie776 6d ago
Someone is dead. The Douche bag that killed her is free because he’s (d)ifferent. Some things never change.
29
u/DigitalEagleDriver 6d ago
So there will never be accountability for Baldwin... This is not surprising, but it is disappointing.
7
14
10
6
u/Deluxe78 6d ago
Why are there real guns on set when there are convincing period looking air soft? Remember the months of nuclear fall out caused by Oppenheimer or massive Chlorine and Mustard Gas clouds they used for 1918?
1
1
-9
u/RationalTidbits 6d ago
Unpopular: I’m having a hard time with the idea of charging Baldwin personally for a crime. The armorer, yes, but not Baldwin. At worst the overall production company could be accountable civilly for wrongful death.
10
u/Paladyne138 6d ago
Baldwin knew the protocol for properly handling guns on set and chose to ignore them.
Modifed Cooper’s 4 Basic Safety Rules for filming:
All guns are always unsafe unless handed to you by the armorer with explicit confirmation of the gun’s status.
Never point the gun directly at a person or the camera. Hollywood has the “Fifteen Degree Rule” for a reason.
Keep your finger out of the trigger guard until you’re actually filming the shot, and only after making sure you’re following all the other rules.
No live ammo on set.
Just like Cooper’s 4 Basic Rules for safe gun handling, you have to break multiple rules for there to be an injury or death on set.
Baldwin was negligent as BOTH the actor pulling the trigger AND as the Producer ultimately responsible for ensuring safety on set; even if he delegated that role to others, he was still ultimately responsible for ignoring warnings that safety protocols were not being properly followed.
0
u/RationalTidbits 6d ago
I hear you. And maybe I need to let this simmer a minute. But I am having trouble with criminal charges. Wrongful death, certainly.
-63
u/RadioHeadSunrise 7d ago
Well the person responsible for the death in this case is already in jail so this makes sense
64
7d ago edited 5d ago
[deleted]
4
u/BossJackson222 6d ago
Because that's the job of the armorer. The actors and actresses do not have the responsibility to make sure the gun is safe. Their insurance company would not allow them to do that. Why? Because if an actor is responsible for gun safety on the set, they wouldnt have even given them insurance. That's why they hire armorers. Do you really think Jennifer Gardner or some other actress that knows nothing about guns is sitting on the set checking all the guns lol? They don't even know anything about guns. They're basically little babies and everyone else tells them what to do on set. They're one and only job is to act. That's the way Hollywood has been for decades. Now, from what I understand he was also the producer. And that makes him a lot more responsible. So I will definitely give you that.
21
u/jtf71 6d ago
The reason Baldwin should be held responsible is that he created the environment that allowed it to happen.
A junior armorer who was afraid of being blacklisted if she didn’t do as she was told. The armorer being required to do other tasks. Etc.
And Baldwin knew about the various safety issues. These issues led to several crew quitting.
It was Baldwins set. He wasn’t just an actor. He was in charge. He knew of safety issues and allowed them to continue.
While I agree that actors shouldn’t be responsible for checking the guns and ammo - imagine trying to make John Wick movies of Reeves and the other actors had to check every gun and round before every take - that’s not why he should be held accountable.
He created the environment and allows it to continue despite complaints and warnings.
7
u/DigitalEagleDriver 6d ago
Not true. Keanu Reeves is an example of this, so is Kurt Russell. They know how to handle firearms and still work in the industry. If an actor gets any kind of firearms training they should be given instruction that includes safe handling of firearms. I know if I ever worked with Hollywood as an instruction, the first hour, minimum, would be dedicated to firearm safety, which is what my current curriculum is.
-5
u/BossJackson222 6d ago
What I'm talking about is them actually being legally responsible for what comes out of the other end of that firearm. These actors are not legally responsible. Their managers and lawyers would never even let them do a film if they somehow were part of the safety coordination of firearms. They're there to read lines and act. The armorers are legally responsible for what comes out the other end of that firearm. Not an actor or actress. Yes, there are some who go through firearm training like Keanu Reeves. But do you really think Queen Latifah is some firearm expert and firearm safety expert on set? No they are not. If they are told to point a gun at someone, they just point it and act. They're not gonna take the firearm, open the chamber and see if there is a fake round or a real round etc. Why? Because because now, they are all of a sudden responsible for what happens to that gun. Their insurance would not even ensure them if actors Were responsible for that.
1
u/dpidcoe 5d ago
The armorers are legally responsible for what comes out the other end of that firearm. Not an actor or actress.
So if an actor brings a loaded gun on set and shoots somebody with it, would that be the fault of the armorer? How about if an actor brings live ammo on set, quickly loads up a prop gun and shoots somebody?
The only way that what you're saying makes any sense is if the gun is controlled by the armorer the entire time. In the case of the Baldwin shooting, the gun wasn't handled through the correct chain. He knew how it was supposed to work, and he was even responsible for creating the environment in which procedures got ignored. He even ignored other movie set safety rules like not pointing it directly at a person when pulling the trigger for a shot.
-1
u/DigitalEagleDriver 6d ago
Ah that makes sense. Yes, legally, that would be problematic for companies that provide insurance for the film industry.
2
u/Nostradomas 6d ago
That’s the stupidest take I’ve ever heard. Being an actor does not absolve u from literally basic gun rules. Not once he checked the weapon wasn’t loaded with bullets? WHAT DO U MEANNNNNNNN??? He can’t be bothered to learn the first rules literal donuts know?!?? Got to be a bit. Got to be. Please don’t be an actual human with this opinion good god we’re doomed
2
u/BossJackson222 6d ago
Do you actually know the official way they do things on movie sets? I mean seriously, do you really know? I'm assuming you don't. Those actors and actresses are guarded like crazy against any lawsuits. If you think the movie set will allow them to be responsible for any type of gun safety, you're sadly mistaken. Why even have an armor at that point? I'm not trying to be argumentative. But most of these Hollywood leftist actors and actresses no absolutely nothing about a machine gun. Or a pistol. And somehow they supposed to know what a real round is compared to a fake round lol? They do not know. They are not required to know. They are told to act. That's it. If the director says to point a gun at somebody, they point a gun at somebody. They're not like… Oh wait a minute, I need to open the chamber and see what's in here lol. That's what you do at a gun range. The armorer checks the gun before it's even given to the actor.
1
u/Unable_Strawberry_69 5d ago
I can’t believe how much you’re getting downvoted holy crap. You’re 100% right.
1
u/BossJackson222 5d ago
I think they're acting like liberals. They let politics get in the way of what happened. I hate this guy's politics more than anything, but I'm not going to make up a bunch of crap just to be angry lol.
-1
u/Nostradomas 6d ago
Blah blah blah they should be. Or don’t touch a fucking gun. You dont get a pass just cause you’re an actor. What type of dog shit excuse is this. If you ever handled a firearm like that around anyone you’d be immediately corrected. But because your on a movie set there’s suddenly new rules? I don’t accept that. It’s a stupid excuse for lazy people
Edit to add. I’m registered in SAG so ya. But nice try to “one up” a random internet stranger.
3
u/BossJackson222 6d ago
Look buddy, I'm not trying to be an asshole or anything. I'm not even wanting to argue. I'm just trying to tell you my opinion. And you haven't touched on ANY of my points that I've made. You're just so angry lol. I'm making a lot of great points. If you are going to sit here and tell me that Queen Latifah was checking out her pistol to make sure that it wasn't loaded with the wrong rounds etc. before she did her scenes in the action movie she made, OK then lol. But I don't believe that for a second. I know what you think they should do. But what I'm talking about is, how they're treating firearms scenarios on set. I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything. Most of us don't actually know what they're doing on set. But you'll never convince me that they are taking these actors, most who hate guns and know nothing about guns, then telling them to be safety coordinators with their firearms… Not happening.
2
u/Nostradomas 6d ago
I do believe they should. I don’t think it’s acceptable practice that they don’t check or have awareness. There guns. It’s not a toy. If you don’t want them to be held accountable to check a real firearm. Then use a fake gun. It’s that simple imo. I don’t think your arguments hold water at any level which is why I haven’t addressed them. Your absolving them of being ignorant because what? They pretend to be someone else on a screen? You’re an adult. Act like it.
And they hate guns because there ignorant. It’s a tool. It’s not a toy. Don’t want to follow the most basic rules that every single person who handles a firearm is taught? Don’t use a real gun. Solved.
1
u/StarCommand1 6d ago
And in real life you don't point any gun at someone unless you intend to kill them even if it is unloaded.... Per that rule and your belief movie sets are not an exception to gun rules, how would they make movies with guns in them at all if you can't point a gun at someone?
1
u/dpidcoe 5d ago
Per that rule and your belief movie sets are not an exception to gun rules, how would they make movies with guns in them at all if you can't point a gun at someone?
You don't point real guns at people even while filming. In scenes where an actor is pointing a gun directly at another actor, it's generally:
1) pointed off to the side of the actor, and the camera angle is such that you can't tell the difference
2) pointed at a mirror
3) a completely inert gun, e.g. it's not capable of firing a projectile or even able to be modified to fire a projectile
There are no instances in movie making where a real gun capable of firing real bullets needs to be pointed at a real actor.
-1
u/Nostradomas 6d ago
Still wouldn’t without checking the chamber. Stop making excuses your wrong and it will never be ok to pass the buck. He didn’t check. Immediate fail do not pass go. How could u ever pickup a firearm and not confirm if it was chambered? Literally never in my life. Ridiculous.
0
u/StarCommand1 6d ago
It's the armorers job on set to do that. No one is arguing the gun shouldn't have been checked, but it wasn't Baldwin's job as an actor to do that. Literally insane you still don't get that. This is how it has always been on a movie set and how it will continue to be done. We know Baldwin is responsible as producer for not ensuring the armorer was properly doing their job. But that is different than him being an actor who was handed a loaded gun by the armorer.
I pray to God you actually don't own any guns yourself because you can't even understand this simple concept. End of story, no sense in arguing further.
0
u/dpidcoe 5d ago
Still wouldn’t without checking the chamber.
You'd check the chamber and see there's a round in it, because it was a revolver and it would look weird in the movie if the cylinders were visibly empty. For scenes like what they were doing, the revolver would be loaded with something similar to snap caps: https://www.amazon.com/Angeebin-Training-Practice-Loading-9MM-10pcs/dp/B0B52459G4
And then there are various other kinds of rounds they might have for various needs, including normal blanks and also rounds with just a primer that'll generate smoke. It would be the armorers job to verify what's loaded for the scene (e.g. if they need a shot of the actor firing a blank, they'd load up one cylinder with the blank, the others with the snap-caps, and make sure it was rotated such that the hammer is going to fall on the blank). There are various ways to tell the different kinds of rounds apart easily (e.g. one of them is a ball bearing inside that you can feel rolling around to verify it's not a normal bullet)., but all of that should be handled by the armorer.
All of this said, the armorer didn't hand Baldwin the gun (safety violation) and baldwin pointed it directly at another actor (another safety violation), so he's still responsible. My argument here is that of all the things to focus on, you've picked one that wouldn't have changed things.
1
u/StarvinPig 6d ago
I mean the states own armorer expert testified that the armorer does not have that duty and that the actor holding the gun has the ultimate responsibility
1
u/Unable_Strawberry_69 5d ago
Maybe you should watch the armorers trial and you will understand. She was 100% at fault. She was bored on set and brought live ammo. If you listen to the trial you’ll also learn the steps they take on movie sets & who is responsible for what.
-5
7d ago
[deleted]
26
7d ago edited 5d ago
[deleted]
-4
u/Obeesus 6d ago
It all falls on the armorer. The armorer had one job, and they failed miserably, and they got what they deserved. Movies break every gun rule, and that's why you have an armorer there to ensure the safety of the people involved.
5
u/Thee_Sinner 6d ago
It also falls on the person in charge of looking at the armorer applicants’ credentials to determine who to hire; in this case, that was Baldwin. He hired someone whose experience boiled down to “the child of someone that actually did this job”.
19
u/Redneck_SysAdmin 6d ago
He assumed is the problem. It doesn't matter who you are, you are responsible for every round that comes out of a gun that you handle. If a range safety officer hands me a firearm and tells me it's not loaded and I accide tally take a life, I get charged and more than likely convicted of manslaughter.
The fact that he's anti-gun, refused gun safety training, was aggressive to the entire film crew and was pointing the weapon directly at the victim all leads to him being almost solely at fault.
-34
u/RadioHeadSunrise 7d ago
If you are driving a forklift and the brakes fail and you skewer a co worker, are you responsible or is the person who does maintenance on the forklift responsible?
30
7d ago edited 5d ago
[deleted]
1
u/languid-lemur 6d ago
>If I pick up a random gun
Was it a random gun though and also, do you work on movies? I don't nor know what the protocols for firearms on a set are. If you do, please clarify the following: For a scene being shot and where guns for scene accessible to actors, do they go thru a safety check each time they pick them up? Or, are they cleared as safe by the armorer as ready to use? If the gun was cleared, is it random?
-32
u/RadioHeadSunrise 7d ago
I guess you’ve never had a job before, because comparing recreational firearm use to professional firearm use is asinine.
A firearm on set is just like any other piece of equipment used while working. Sometimes you are responsible for the equipment you operate but sometimes you aren’t. On a movie set, the responsibility of the safe operation of firearms falls on the armorer who is currently in jail.
Hope this helps!
22
7d ago edited 5d ago
[deleted]
-15
u/RadioHeadSunrise 7d ago
I guess you’re not capable of processing nuance but sometimes actions are a lot more complicated than just the last person in a chain of events.
If you want to live your life insisting it’s the person who put the last bottle in the trash can who is solely responsible for the trash being full so be it. But I can’t help you and neither can anybody else if you’re incapable of understanding analogies.
Also, if you have such hubris to insist your completely uninformed opinion on this case is more right than a court system built on complete factual analysis and hundreds of years of common law practice that’s hilarious as well.
19
2
1
15
u/2017hayden 7d ago
Wrong. Standard set procedure is the armory master checks the gun, shows clear to the actor then things proceed. Baldwin was the producer and in charge of on set safety. He told someone who wasn’t the armory master to go get the gun and took the gun from someone who wasn’t the armory master even though he knew that wasn’t proper procedure. He is 100% at fault.
The analogy that works here would be Baldwin as the safety inspector for the forklift hopping into a forklift they knew had safety issues and driving it without having a mechanic check it over.
3
u/elevenpointf1veguy 6d ago
Yes, you are responsible, assuming you are responsible for conducting a brake check prior to moving.
Just like you are responsible for conducting a clearing check prior to handling the firearm.
3
4
7d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Bloodless10 6d ago
He explicitly said in a police interview that he knew the difference between “fake” and live ammo, and the he declined to check the firearm to know which is anything was in it. He was negligent 100%.
On top of which, it’s his responsibility as producer to hire competent people, especially safety people.
It comes down to one thing. He completely disregarded the basic gun safety rules and sometime else paid the price.
120
u/MuttFett 7d ago
This was always going to be the outcome.