ABC: Judge dismisses Alec Baldwin's 'Rust' case after defense claims evidence was withheld.
- Thread starter wemay
- Start date
- Status
Willing to bet the armourer goes free as well.
She might if this was a factor in her case as well.
The state will also owe her six figure compensation.
Dismissed with prejudice because the state broke evidentiary rules. Baldwin walks and can't be tried again.
Not really justice for loved ones of….victims
What is justice?
IF you are handed a supposedly unloaded weapon and no live ammo on set.
The whole thing stinks but does anyone think it was done on purpose?
If anything they would have to connect Baldwin from the producer angle.. not as the shooter.
It was a very unfortunate accident. I hope if anything comes from this it will be a greater emphasis on firearms safety on production sets.
Not on purpose
But severe negligence can be punishable
Yes agree stinks and prosecutors lame
If the Pope hands me a revolver and says it's unloaded, I'm still going to check it and even then I won't point it at someone recklessly or without cause.
Anything less is negligence in my mind.
Last edited:
I would also, but I'm not acting on a set that is live ammo free and told by the armorer its unloaded.
Its quite odd as if someone set this up on purpose. How else does this even happen.
To me, with guns, it is always on the person who pulled the trigger, it's always responsibility of the person who has the gun to check whether it's loaded or not.
With that logic, do you inspect your brake job just completed by a certified mechanic? Do you verify that your pills packaged by the pharmacist are correct? If you die because you ingested the wrong pills, your logic suggests it is your fault.
Real basic firearms safety tells even a novice that you never point a weapon at someone you don't intend to shoot.
Doesn't matter whether you think it's unloaded or that it's only loaded with blanks.
I can't see what the prosecution might have withheld that would alter this simple fact.
I do wonder what really happened in this case and how and why.
Doesn't matter whether you think it's unloaded or that it's only loaded with blanks.
I can't see what the prosecution might have withheld that would alter this simple fact.
I do wonder what really happened in this case and how and why.
I've spend some time researching this one, the actors are just "dummys" on set - they are handed a firearm and told to do xyz. They aren't to check it or manipulate in anyway beyond what the armorer has told them to do - this is SOP in that industry. So here, how would he have known what was a blank and what was a live round or even be allowed to check? At some point, there will be firearms pointed at other people on a set, how else will you get all the various shot angles etc.? That's why there is no live ammo allowed and the guns are ofter neutered so they couldn't fire a live round if you wanted to. I never understood why he was ever to blame here, the armorer has the blame on this one for ever allowing live ammo on set which she did and is negligent of. If he did something he wasn't supposed to/against the instructions, sure but that's not how I understand/have read the accounts of what happened. Brandon Lee was killed during filming of The Crow in the early '90s when a firearm was discharged that had a projectile of some sort/part of a blank in the chamber. It is rare but has happened. Nobody here would, as an actor, go against any rules/protocols that were setup on set w/r to firearms...if you were handed a gun and told to point it at so and so as part of the scene, you would do it and assume (you'd have to!) that it was safe, why wouldn't you? We all understand the 4 universal firearms safety rules, but there are situations, like a movie set where they will not be upheld b/c other controls have been put in place to prevent issues/circumvent those rules. I believe they do their best to never have to point guns at anyone on set with angles etc. but at some point, it's going to happen and be part of the job hence the protocols in-place and the job of the movie's armorer.
Last edited:
It was a movie shoot of course you need to point the gun at the actors to make it believable.
An actor does not have that responsibility on a movie set b/c the protocols are in place to prevent him/her from having to do so.
I feel like folks are missing this here...
Actors are stupid so the industry has the standard of the "armorer" position.
IMO they should do a "safety brief" just before the scene where the armorer demonstrates how the weapon is empty/ loaded with blanks/ shows everyone the blanks coming from a sealed box from "blank-co" etc.
The problem is once the armorer gives up the gun, he/she is still responsible for it, because actors are stupid. An actor messing with the mechanism is cause for alarm, even if to re-verify it's empty, because what if he has real ammo in his pocket?
The movie was done on a shoestring budget with an inexperienced armorer who broke a number of rules, #1 being plinking with real ammo with the same weapon. The blame belongs with the management of the production, of which Baldwin was one of several "officers." I'm sure Baldwin feels awful, absolutely awful, but so also would a parent who leaves their kid in a hot car with the windows up or any other number of tragedies.
IMO they should do a "safety brief" just before the scene where the armorer demonstrates how the weapon is empty/ loaded with blanks/ shows everyone the blanks coming from a sealed box from "blank-co" etc.
The problem is once the armorer gives up the gun, he/she is still responsible for it, because actors are stupid. An actor messing with the mechanism is cause for alarm, even if to re-verify it's empty, because what if he has real ammo in his pocket?
The movie was done on a shoestring budget with an inexperienced armorer who broke a number of rules, #1 being plinking with real ammo with the same weapon. The blame belongs with the management of the production, of which Baldwin was one of several "officers." I'm sure Baldwin feels awful, absolutely awful, but so also would a parent who leaves their kid in a hot car with the windows up or any other number of tragedies.
Good point, but then how was it a cinematographer who got hit and not another actor?
I could see the prosecution doing this on purpose.
- Status
Similar threads
