Not up for reading 1957 posts.
Yes, I can read the story online, though I’d appreciate a summary of that as well, but I’d kinda like to know where the thread bends-- maybe without names, “posters tend the think this issue is crap,” or “posters are mostly sympathetic to the DA who has to handle this.”
Yes, I know I will get a lot of long posts, but can’t be as long as that thread.
Summarize is fine, but no fresh arguing of the prior points in that thread.
I will be ready to ban people from this thread if they rehash the arguments of the main thread. I will hide said posts. So be objective in your posting.
Also @RivkahChaya, a link back to that thread would be a good idea.
How do I link back? never done that before?
Just copy and paste the link for the thread.
ETA: ninja’ed by @What_Exit. In greater detail …
Go to the OP of that thread. Click the chain link icon at the bottom of that post. Then click the copy button on the popup, and paste the resulting link into your post here, and ideally into your OP while you’re first writing it. Although it’s now too late to edit your OP.
Which link I’ve just put here:
Which also has the result of putting a link to this thread / post into the footer of that thread’s OP.
The basic facts as I understand them:
Alec Baldwin was the producer and actor in a indie western called Rust.
The armorer for the film took some of the guns used as film props out for some recreational shooting, and accidentally mixed some of the real bullets they used for plinking in with the dummy bullets used for filming.
The armorer wasn’t on set when the gun was taken by an AD, and given to Baldwin to use in a scene.
While filming the scene, the gun went off and killed the cinematographer, Halynah Hutchins.
The bulk of the thread is going around and around over the question of how much culpability for the shooting lies on Baldwin, both as the person who was holding the gun when it went off, and as a producer who was (to some extent) in charge of the entire film. Getting into the details of that would entail a lot of relitigating the fight in the original thread, so I’m going to stop there.
With a large side-order of whether the movie industry’s standard practices ref prop guns are a) sufficiently safe and goof-resistant, and b) ought, or ought not, be subject to more stringent government regulation.
( I gave upon reading it long ago)
Is it safe to say that the summary is…there is no summary? People are just still going round and round? Nothing has been decided, no consensus has been reached?
And Baldwin is still free?
Good summary. Also- was the gun used defective? The FBI broke the gun during testing, so we will never know.
@DrDeth As you seem to be posting a non-established fact, you are BANNED from this thread. A quick check indicates it is not accepted as fact by the FBI or Court. Take these arguments back to the actual thread.
There is a substantial consensus that the armorer had the most responsibility–and she has been sentenced to prison. But there is no consensus about Baldwin.
Baldwin is still free; but a trial is starting.
Thanks to everyone who posted!
I didn’t realize Baldwin was the producer, and that’s why he was in so much trouble. That makes sense now.
Also, thanks to LSLGuy for posting the link!
This is not a matter of fact. There are many producers on a film: some with an additional title (line producer, executive producer, associate producer), and some just “producer.” And what any specific producer actually does varies from person to person. It is not a simple thing to say Baldwin was “the” producer because there were several, and he was not “in charge” of the movie. He was the most prominent star and had clout as a result, but it’s misleading to say he’s “the” producer and therefore has overarching financial or technical authority over the film.
So why is Baldwin in trouble?
There is no easy and objective answer to that question (being mindful of moderator guidance), and it’s why the other thread ran for hundreds and hundreds of variously opinionated posts.
The short version is that there are very few objectively agreed facts: Rust was a low-budget production which was cutting corners right and left, the gun was in Baldwin’s hand when it went off, and there was an actual bullet in the gun which shouldn’t have been there (it should have been empty, or at worst filled with nonreactive dummies). The shooting happened during a camera rehearsal when Baldwin was practicing a specific type of draw so the cinematographer could adjust framing and lighting. The armorer was not present at that moment, which is a violation of standard film-production procedure; the armorer should always be there when firearms are being used in front of the camera. Also, the armorer was young and inexperienced. The gun was delivered to Baldwin not by the armorer but by the first assistant director, who retrieved it and brought it to set, describing it to Baldwin as “cold” (industry parlance for “not loaded, and safe”).
Beyond that, nearly everything else is conjecture, opinion, and argument. And I’ll stay away from offering any of that information unless you directly ask specific questions and the moderator says it’s okay to offer narrow answers.
Actually, your post is pretty much what I was looking for. If the thread is long because people are arguing, and not because there are lots of links to new information as it breaks, I know I don’t need to read it.
I believe also that the 1st Asst Dir. who handed Baldwin the gun was in charge of safety for the shoot, and he is the one who avoided jail time by making a deal with prosecutors soon after the incident.
The main thing is that there is information that could answer your question about why Baldwin is going to trial, but it is unclear if we can state this information, since it inherently involves facts asserted by the prosecution which are disputed by Baldwin. (DrDeth attempted to mention one of those.)
What I can surely say is that Baldwin is on trial for being the shooter, not for being the producer. The indictment was for involuntary manslaughter.
Yikes! OK, but that I can Google.
He was holding the gun when it fired.