There is no source other than a few people circulating it.
There is no source other than a few people circulating it.
According to a search warrant executed by the Santa Fe County Sheriff's office, obtained by Fox News, the actor and crew were setting up a shot that required Baldwin to cross-draw a revolver and point the weapon at the camera. However, thanks to a shadow that was coming into the church structure from light outside, the camera had to be adjusted to a different angle. Baldwin was working with the director and the cinematographer demonstrating how he was going to draw his revolver from its holster and where his arm would be for the new shot. While demonstrating, the firearm went off.
Director Joel Souza explained that he heard "what sounded like a whip and then a loud pop," and noticed Hutchins, who was standing in front of him at the time, grab her midsection as she stumbled backward. She "was assisted to the ground" by other crew members and camera operator Reid Russell recalls Hutchins saying she could not feel her legs.
Hutchins was immediately attended to by on-site medics and later airlifted to the University of New Mexico Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico, where she was eventually pronounced dead. Souza, who was also injured in the incident, was taken by ambulance to Christus St. Vincent Hospital in Santa Fe where he was treated for a wound near his right shoulder. He has since been released from the hospital.
Souza said three people were handling the gun for the scene. Armorer Hanna Gutierrez Reed reportedly handled prop guns left on a cart outside the structure they were shooting in due to coronavirus restrictions. Assistant director Dave Halls handed one of those guns to Baldwin. According to a Santa Fe court, Halls announced that it was a "cold gun" before giving it to the actor, lingo meaning that the firearm was unloaded. As a result, Baldwin and the two people who were wounded believed the firearm was safe to use in the staging of the scene. Both the director and Russell noted that cameras were not rolling at the time as they were still setting up the shots.
Souza said in the warrant that the cast and crew prepared the scene before lunch and then had their meal away from the shooting location around 12:30 p.m. He was not sure if the gun was checked again when everyone returned from lunch. However, he stated that firearms are supposed to be checked by the armorer followed by the assistant director before handing them to the actor. He said he was not sure if people were checked for live ammunition on their person, but stated that live ammunition should not have been anywhere near the scene.
"The safety of our cast and crew is the top priority of Rust Productions and everyone associated with the company," Rust Movie Productions said in a statement to multiple outlets. "Though we were not made aware of any official complaints concerning weapon or prop safety on set, we will be conducting an internal review of our procedures while production is shut down. We will continue to cooperate with the Santa Fe authorities in their investigation and offer mental health services to the cast and crew during this tragic time."
phony al wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
In your supreme stupidity you have assumed without factual basis that it was Baldwin's fault that the gun was loaded. Baldwin was assured it was not loaded by the assistant director and if that was advice he should reasonably trust then he acted without fault. The same would apply to any cowboy in a Western who acted on the same basis and a fatality resulted. There is no criminal negligence on the part of the person who pulls the trigger in the event of a death in those circumstances.
In your supreme stupidity, you have assumed that I assumed something, which I did not. I've set forth the issue here several times.
In any case, your supreme stupidity allowed you to post this: "Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did."
That is idiotic logic, for the reasons set forth above. You failed to address those reasons above. If you were a lawyer, the word "acquiescence" would come to mind.
But you have proven you aren't a lawyer. You are a FAKE lawyer on the internet.
I was pointing out that Baldwin did nothing more than countless actors in Westerns have done before him. If he was thus guilty of criminal negligence then their actions constituted the same if someone had died as a result.
Of course you think I am a fake lawyer - you are completely ignorant of how the law works. I am arguing with a hillbilly.
Armstronglivs wrote:
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
The buck ALWAYS stops with whomever is in possession of the gun, irrespective of "protocol". Basic firearm safety dictates that the one holding the gun checks the chamber to determine whether is loaded or not. And with what. In particular if its handed to someone else. The fact that someone told him it was "cold" is irrelevant. That being said, it appears that basic firearm safety protocols were not followed on the set in general, which is obviously unfortunate.
So when a cast of film extras unload their firearms in a battle scene you know for a fact they checked their weapons? It is "irrelevant" that there are people whose job it is to do that?
The buck ALWAYS stops with whoever is pulling the trigger.
Armstronglivs wrote:
phony al wrote:
In your supreme stupidity, you have assumed that I assumed something, which I did not. I've set forth the issue here several times.
In any case, your supreme stupidity allowed you to post this: "Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did."
That is idiotic logic, for the reasons set forth above. You failed to address those reasons above. If you were a lawyer, the word "acquiescence" would come to mind.
But you have proven you aren't a lawyer. You are a FAKE lawyer on the internet.
I was pointing out that Baldwin did nothing more than countless actors in Westerns have done before him. If he was thus guilty of criminal negligence then their actions constituted the same if someone had died as a result.
Of course you think I am a fake lawyer - you are completely ignorant of how the law works. I am arguing with hillbilly.YO
If I am Alec Baldwin and someone gives me a "safe gun" - does that mean I can go willy nilly fake shooting everybody on the set? Since that person who handed me the gun said it was safe, I then have carte blanche to blast away at anyone I see on the set. It seems it is YOU who is the hillbilly. Jed Clampett would know better and would check the chamber himself.
Bald Always Win wrote:
This is a first. Baldwin shot someone with a real gun loaded with real ammo. The other incidents were accidents.
And so was this. The gun was declared to be safe - unloaded. There was no intention to harm anyone. Baldwin was simply rehearsing a scene.
You are correct that if John Wayne or Clint Eastwood shot someone on set using live ammo, they would be guilty of a crime. But they were more cautious than Baldwin by using better staff and checking their own guns.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Bald Always Win wrote:
This is a first. Baldwin shot someone with a real gun loaded with real ammo. The other incidents were accidents.
And so was this. The gun was declared to be safe - unloaded. There was no intention to harm anyone. Baldwin was simply rehearsing a scene.
Actually, this comes down to something the late great Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify." Baldwin could trust that the gun was "safe" but the burden was on him to verify that it was actually "safe." He never did that.
danube steak wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
I was pointing out that Baldwin did nothing more than countless actors in Westerns have done before him. If he was thus guilty of criminal negligence then their actions constituted the same if someone had died as a result.
Of course you think I am a fake lawyer - you are completely ignorant of how the law works. I am arguing with hillbilly.YO
If I am Alec Baldwin and someone gives me a "safe gun" - does that mean I can go willy nilly fake shooting everybody on the set? Since that person who handed me the gun said it was safe, I then have carte blanche to blast away at anyone I see on the set. It seems it is YOU who is the hillbilly. Jed Clampett would know better and would check the chamber himself.
He didn't "blast away at anyone he saw on the set" but he was rehearsing a scene with what he was assured was an unloaded weapon. Just like countless actors before him. It is flattering to you to describe you as a hillbilly.
Armstronglivs wrote:
Bald Always Win wrote:
This is a first. Baldwin shot someone with a real gun loaded with real ammo. The other incidents were accidents.
And so was this. The gun was declared to be safe - unloaded. There was no intention to harm anyone. Baldwin was simply rehearsing a scene.
How do you know that? No one here knows all the facts. Please quit saying you know what actually happened because you don't. No one here does.
danube steak wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And so was this. The gun was declared to be safe - unloaded. There was no intention to harm anyone. Baldwin was simply rehearsing a scene.
Actually, this comes down to something the late great Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify." Baldwin could trust that the gun was "safe" but the burden was on him to verify that it was actually "safe." He never did that.
Sheesh! Ronald Reagan was talking about nuclear disarmament vis a vis the Soviet Union; I don't think he was referring to when he acted in a Western. This place has really become a refuge for troglodytes.
danube steak wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
And so was this. The gun was declared to be safe - unloaded. There was no intention to harm anyone. Baldwin was simply rehearsing a scene.
How do you know that? No one here knows all the facts. Please quit saying you know what actually happened because you don't. No one here does.
Those facts have been widely published. But I guess you don't read very widely.
Today Show just state that there are potential criminal charges. They would never say that unless it is likely.
Armstronglivs wrote:
danube steak wrote:
Actually, this comes down to something the late great Ronald Reagan said, "Trust but verify." Baldwin could trust that the gun was "safe" but the burden was on him to verify that it was actually "safe." He never did that.
Sheesh! Ronald Reagan was talking about nuclear disarmament vis a vis the Soviet Union; I don't think he was referring to when he acted in a Western. This place has really become a refuge for troglodytes.
"Trust but verify" can be transitioned to many scenarios. And yes, I am a hillbilly. I only have half my teeth and reside in Tennessee.
Bald Always Win wrote:
You are correct that if John Wayne or Clint Eastwood shot someone on set using live ammo, they would be guilty of a crime. But they were more cautious than Baldwin by using better staff and checking their own guns.
They would not be guilty of a crime unless they had known their guns were loaded or had known that the gun safety protocols on the set were inadequate or not being followed. You can take a horse to water but you can't make them drink - and so it is with trying to achieve an understanding of the criminal law with posters such as yourself.
You really seem to have no understanding of the legal system. People get killed everyday and the person who is responsible states that it was not them or if they are identified, they state that it was a mistake. Somebody died. A thorough investigation will be conducted. I believe that Baldwin will be charged but I am uncertain. You seem to want to take statements of your idols as facts.
OLD SMTC SOB wrote:
Bald Always Win wrote:
Incorrect. If you the lead hands you a gun and tells you that it is unloaded and you decide to point it at him and pull the trigger, you will be found guilty, not him. Movie protocols don't insulate them from the law. Their protocols are supposed to eliminate the chance that they will kill someone with a gun. So when they do kill someone with a gun, someone is guilty of murder because it actually happened. This is not a hypothetical situation. This was a live round. Baldwin shot someone with it. The protocol failed if he even followed it.
The buck ALWAYS stops with whomever is in possession of the gun, irrespective of "protocol". Basic firearm safety dictates that the one holding the gun checks the chamber to determine whether is loaded or not. And with what. In particular if its handed to someone else. The fact that someone told him it was "cold" is irrelevant. That being said, it appears that basic firearm safety protocols were not followed on the set in general, which is obviously unfortunate.
A prosecutor saying that in front of a jury will not get a conviction. He/she is going has to prove it's common practice for an actor to check the safety of a prop gun, close to a 100% do so and occasionally, actors will detect a gun containing a live round. I doubt if that is the case.
The prop manager has the skills and training to confirm the safety of a prop gun and he has to do so 100% of the time. 99.9% of the time is not got enough.
danube steak wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
Sheesh! Ronald Reagan was talking about nuclear disarmament vis a vis the Soviet Union; I don't think he was referring to when he acted in a Western. This place has really become a refuge for troglodytes.
"Trust but verify" can be transitioned to many scenarios. And yes, I am a hillbilly. I only have half my teeth and reside in Tennessee.
It might be "transitioned" but Baldwin wasn't in charge of nuclear weapons - which is what Reagan was talking about. It isn't only your teeth you have half of.
Only if they knew it was loaded? My buddy hands me a gun and tells me that it is unloaded and I point it at him and pull the trigger and kill him. No crime? According to you, I can walk away. No big deal because I thought it was unloaded. Oh well. It's only a human life.
Armstronglivs wrote:
phony al wrote:
In your supreme stupidity, you have assumed that I assumed something, which I did not. I've set forth the issue here several times.
In any case, your supreme stupidity allowed you to post this: "Also, for criminal negligence to apply you would have to say every cowboy who has fired a gun in a Western would be guilty of the same - because they too would have trusted it was only a prop when told so - as Baldwin did."
That is idiotic logic, for the reasons set forth above. You failed to address those reasons above. If you were a lawyer, the word "acquiescence" would come to mind.
But you have proven you aren't a lawyer. You are a FAKE lawyer on the internet.
I was pointing out that Baldwin did nothing more than countless actors in Westerns have done before him. If he was thus guilty of criminal negligence then their actions constituted the same if someone had died as a result.
Of course you think I am a fake lawyer - you are completely ignorant of how the law works. I am arguing with a hillbilly.
Baldwin is the producer, not just an actor. In his role as producer he is responsible for providing a safe work environment. He cut corners to make more money. He is grossly negligent.
No scholarship limits anymore! (NCAA Track and Field inequality is going to get way worse, right?)
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Matt Fox/SweatElite harasses one of his clients after they called him out
I’m a guy. I see a female psychiatrist. I’m developing feelings for her and confused.