General Question

safai's avatar

Why is the person who put the real bullet on Rust, not being charged with murder?

Asked by safai (118points) 1 week ago

Involuntary manslaughter?
1)Is there a link out there where that is explained? How can putting a live bullet in a gun be unintentional?
2)According to one article the person who handed him the gun said she checked that there is no live bullets in it, put in in a locked space, went to lunch. So, what do the security cameras say? Did someone else manage to get in the locked space or what?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

39 Answers

safai's avatar

And even if no one else had access to the gun in the locked space, was the camera shown (real close up)that the bullets are all blank?

How can the actor and the armorer be charged with the same thing?

LadyMarissa's avatar

Just GUESSING…the police looked into ALL those questions & came up with nothing!!! They can’t PROVE that the armorer put the live round in the gun & they can’t PROVE that Baldwin did it either. They are being pressed to do something, so charging someone with involuntary manslaughter is the best that they have at this point. They are looking for a miracle & hope it occurs during the trial!!! It’s one of those dirty tricks that cops play on suspects to get them to tell on themselves.

I’m of the opinion thtat Baldwin jumped on the talk show circuit way too fast to explain how he had nothing to do with it, for him to not be guilty of something!!! I prefer to believe that he did nothing, but he seemed awfully guilty of something to me!!!

RayaHope's avatar

I still don’t understand why there is a real bullet on the movie set in the first place! Whomever brought that to the set should be guilty!

smudges's avatar

Like @janbb said: It might be worth waiting to see how the case comes out before speculating and judging.

RayaHope's avatar

Real bullet supplier = guilty!

kritiper's avatar

Whoever put the real bullet in the gun had no real, if any, victim in mind. Any death was involuntary, hence, involuntary manslaughter, i.e., standard operating procedure.

ragingloli's avatar

What is interesting is that in the game “Hitman Blood Money”, that was one of the methods to assassinate an opera singer in Paris: By replacing a prop C96 Mauser with a real one, and having an unwitting actor kill the target for you on stage.
Not saying that some assassin was involved here, but food for thought.

kritiper's avatar

Fake bullets that I have seen with the military have a hole drilled through the casing.

@RayaHope So says you. But prove intent. And remember one thing! NEVER try to second guess a jury!

RayaHope's avatar

@kritiper Convince a jury why there was a REAL bullet on a movie set!

kritiper's avatar

@RayaHope That won’t be a matter of question. What will be a matter of question is who put it there?

RayaHope's avatar

Okay, same thing. Make me jury foremen:) Off with their head.

RayaHope's avatar

An innocent woman is dead because of their negligence. First degree manslaughter. I watched Law & Order once. ha!

smudges's avatar

Based on what I’ve read, Dave Halls is at fault and was removed from the set immediately and was then fired.

RayaHope's avatar

Well it’s nice to know they had something to do when they got bored like shooting at cans and stupid stuff. “Hey lets shoot up some cans and then throw the gun in the bin for the next photo shoot!” Yeah since we use these guns in the film, what could possibly go wrong?

OMG! What is wrong with people today?

Blackberry's avatar

The celebrity will get off easier. The faster you recognize the legal system is biased towards money, the better.

The person that loaded the gun is a poor person with 100k in college debt.

JLeslie's avatar

Pretty sure the armorer on set is being charged with involuntary manslaughter also. She is the woman who was responsible for the guns on the set.

The person who directly handed Alec the gun already pleaded out.

@kritiper I doubt you need intent for involuntary manslaughter, that doesn’t make sense. Involuntary is more like negligence. The husband of a woman I worked with went to jail for many years for driving through a red light at 80 mph in a 50 mph and killing 6 people who were all together in a single car. He didn’t intend to kill them, he was just reckless.

jca2's avatar

There is no intent with involuntary manslaughter. If there was intent, it would be murder, @kritiper.

This is manslaughter (not involuntary) definition: the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or otherwise in circumstances not amounting to murder.

kritiper's avatar

I disagree with @jca2 . Prove the intent to kill.
@JLeslie A gun is not a car. Especially a prop gun being used to make a movie. Who knew where the gun might be pointed if and when it might go off?

mazingerz88's avatar

This from the actors’ union,

“The death of Halyna Hutchins is a tragedy, and all the more so because of its preventable nature. It is not a failure of duty or a criminal act on the part of any performer.

“The prosecutor’s contention that an actor has a duty to ensure the functional and mechanical operation of a firearm on a production set is wrong and uninformed. An actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert.

Firearms are provided for their use under the guidance of multiple expert professionals directly responsible for the safe and accurate operation of that firearm.

In addition, the employer is always responsible for providing a safe work environment at all times, including hiring and supervising the work of professionals trained in weapons.

“The Industry Standards for safety with firearms and use of blank ammunition are clearly laid out in Safety Bulletin 1, provided by the Joint Industry-Wide Labor Management Safety Commission. The guidelines require an experienced, qualified armorer to be put in charge of all handling, use, and safekeeping of firearms on set. These duties include “inspecting the firearm and barrel before and after every firing sequence,” and “checking all firearms before each use.”

“The guidelines do not make it the performer’s responsibility to check any firearm. Performers train to perform, and they are not required or expected to be experts on guns or experienced in their use. The industry assigns that responsibility to qualified professionals who oversee their use and handling in every aspect. Anyone issued a firearm on set must be given training and guidance in its safe handling and use, but all activity with firearms on a set must be under the careful supervision and control of the professional armorer and the employer.”

SnipSnip's avatar

They do not know who that is.

JLeslie's avatar

@kritiper My guess is the gun was intended to be pointed at someone in a scene, so the unbelievable recklessness of having any live ammo on set, let alone in a gun that will be used in a scene is inexcusable.

Here is one article about the armorer and Baldwin each being charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter.

I guess they didn’t follow protocol, which does show some recklessness.

Driving a car at 80 mph is very similar. No stopping time. He was going very fast on a road that has traffic lights, it wasn’t an interstate. He tried to argue he had some sort of diabetic trance, but witnesses said he was dodging traffic, and if I remember correctly he was on his cell phone. When I first heard about the crash I said to my husband, “that’s probably some regularly guy driving way too fast,” and then the next day I found out it was the husband of a woman I work with. Back then my husband used to speed more, thank goodness he stopped that behavior a while ago.

kritiper's avatar

@JLeslie But no particular person was intended (if there was intent) to be a target of the bullet.
And I never said that the act would be excusable. You just can’t charge anyone other than the person who loaded the gun, or who was responsible for whatever was loaded into the gun. That person was not Baldwin.
To say that it is similar to a car going 80 MPH would be like saying he, Baldwin, knew the gun have a live round in it and that he knew the gun could kill.

JLeslie's avatar

@kritiper You aren’t understanding that you don’t need intent for involuntary manslaughter. I actually don’t think Baldwin should go to jail, because supposedly he had asked if the gun was safe.

The person responsible for loading the gun and also the person responsible for checking the gun were negligent like speeding down the road. I stand by that analogy.

If Baldwin was supposed to check the gun in some way besides just asking if it’s safe, then he might be considered negligent also, I’m not sure of the specific protocol.

mazingerz88's avatar

^^The actor’s guild statement has said something about protocols.

kritiper's avatar

@JLeslie I see your point about the speeding car. It doesn’t explain how Baldwin fits in.

jca2's avatar

@kritiper Baldwin was directly responsible because he shot the gun but he did not intend to kill anybody, because he did not know there was a real bullet in the chamber.

Here’s an example of someone who was charged with, and convicted of involuntary manslaughter (someone I know). He helped a friend shoot heroin, by putting the needle in the friend’s arm (friend needed assistance doing it). The friend died. The person I know was directly responsible, because he put the needle into the person’s arm, but he did not intend to kill him, therefore, involuntary manslaughter conviction.

smudges's avatar

Michelle Carter should have been charged for more than involuntary manslaughter because there was intent, she knew he would die if he listened to her encouraging him to suicide. Laws are different all over I guess. Involuntary manslaughter shouldn’t include intent, but where there is intent, it should be some degree of homicide.

kritiper's avatar

@jca2 Baldwin did not shoot the gun. The gun went off when the hammer slipped out from under his thumb. (I believe this fact will be proven in the court.)
And you assume Baldwin KNEW there was a live round in the gun WHICH HE DID NOT.
Your friend KNEW he was helping his friend shoot up heroin. Big difference!

But we all know that the truth of the matter will be brought out in court. And I look forward to it!

jca2's avatar

@kritiper I believe Baldwin’s charge will be reduced, as it usually is for affluent people. He’ll end up getting some type of community service. The truth really won’t come out, as his high powered attorneys will strike some type of bargain with the prosecutors.

smudges's avatar

Baldwin shouldn’t even be charged with anything. It was Dave Halls’ fault. I don’t know if he’s been charged with anything, but they fired him almost immediately. Apparently he’s known in the industry for having a lackadaisical attitude toward safety. I hope Baldwin doesn’t even get community service.

Smashley's avatar

The idea that the gun went off by itself is most likely some crusty bullshit, so Baldwin is lying.

It is the responsibility of the producers and trained staff to ensure a safe work environment. They are the one’s responsible most directly for the death, and if anyone gets a murder rap it’ll be them.

That said, Baldwin, though he probably had no reasonable expectation the weapon would fire, operated it in a manner, that had he known it had live ammo, would have been at least reckless or negligent homicide. The case is really going to hinge on whether the state can beat that Guild argument that the performer has no responsibility for safely using the weapon. That will be hard. Yes, Baldwin broke the rules of gun safety by pointing it at a human and pulling the trigger, but we ask that of actors all the time. Maybe he was screwing around, maybe he wasn’t, but the gun was absolutely not supposed to be loaded. I think there could be a charge that would stick to a lesser (read: poorer) man.

JLeslie's avatar

^^Baldwin is the producer, or one of if there is more than one.

Smashley's avatar

@JLeslie – ok, then throw the book at him. Actually that brings up an interesting point about responsibility. Does he as a producer have a responsibility to the general situational awareness of his set to have a higher burden placed on his actions as an actor? I’d say that’s a much easier argument to make than “actors must check their guns”.

Smashley's avatar

One thing this might do is limit the people falling over themselves for producer credit..

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t understand having guns on sets that have ammo at all. Why take the risk? For what? For a movie? They can film firing a gun and edit it it into the film and never point anything loaded at a real human being. I would think they could have fake guns on set with literally no place for a bullet.

It reminds me of people coming to my dance class sick. Dance class! It’s just not that important to risk other people. Sorry, I’m just dealing with a lot of covid situations right now. lol.

Kraigmo's avatar

The Armoror on set had said in the past “Guns are fun!”.
And she was probably playing around in the off-hours, shooting glass bottles, etc., and had no intention of killing anyone. The bullet was left in the gun by accident.
Variety newspaper said: “When she loaded Baldwin’s gun, Gutierrez Reed said she pulled four bullets without primers from her pocket. She pulled two others from a box. She said she checked all of them to make sure they were dummies. But one of the rounds was live. (Apr 28, 2022)
And from that quote, we already know she’s lying or has missing memory.
The dummy rounds make a small rattling noise due to the ball bearing inside. All you have to do is shake the bullet. If there’s no rattle, then it’s live ammunition.
I submit that Hannah Gutierrez-Reed first was playing with her bullets, and then later on-set, failed to check each bullet before handing them over to the director. She has the “guns are fun” attitude.
The supplier of the dummy rounds, Mr. Kenney said “She just — she commingled stuff; That’s my thought. She straight up commingled stuff, and she didn’t do what she was supposed to do. You have to assume that everything’s live coming in. All the Western belts coming in out there are going to be live. Because you can’t trust anyone.”

Now to complicate the issue, Hannah’s dad accuses Mr. Kenney himself of possessing the live rounds because he himself supplied Mr. Kenney with those rounds.

Then the director didn’t check the gun. And he got in trouble for not checking guns properly in the past on other movies, too.

So we know it was a chain of failures by the “Guns are Fun” crowd that caused this.

People who think “guns are fun” are the last people who should have guns.
If one has a gun, one’s emotions for it should be akin to owning a wrench or a pair of pliers, or a kitchen spoon. It’s a tool. If one “loves” their guns, it means there’s something wrong with them. Like a part of them failed to grow up.

JLeslie's avatar

@Kraigmo That’s what I say about the difference between when I lived in cities that I knew guns were everywhere because people boasted about their guns and constantly talked about going shooting, and cities where people almost never talked about guns. The attitude is completely different, and in the gun cities I felt much less safe and statistically they were less safe.

jca2's avatar

He’s being charged today and they said even though he says he never put his finger on the trigger, there’s video of him putting his finger on the trigger (not from the event itself).

On the news, they said the whole case is about his obligations – what were his obligations as actor and producer. Also, they said during training, he missed half of it and he was on the phone with his family for some of it. Lesson to all – even though you’re the boss, when there’s training, you show up, act like you care, and act like you’re not above every other person taking the required training, because they’re going to look at all of it in court.

Answer this question




to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther