Halyna Hutchins' Death by a Prop Gun

[Peacock]

As I mentioned before, the Baldwin charge as relates to him in his role as an actor is very simple. Actors are required at the time of receiving a weapon to check themselves to see if is a gun is loaded or be shown by the armourer. Why? Forget about live ammunition - a blank will easily kill if you’re close enough to the person you’re pointing the weapon at.

The footage of Baldwin practicing his quickdraw during this rehearsal is online (cutting shortly before the gun fires). I’m sure practicing the quickdraw with the actual gun was helpful over using his fingers or a plastic gun. However this doesn’t change the massive breach of safety rules in taking a weapon from a non-armourer, not checking it and then pointing it at someone.

It wouldn’t make him a diva to request the armourer in this situation - it is literally the norm on a film set.

And again, Baldwin cannot just rely on the armourer to ensure all weapons around the set are safe at all times and ok to pick up without the armourer present … because even if Rust had a team of the ten best armourers in the world instead of Reed, Baldwin could still potentially kill somebody had the weapon he was given by a third party still be loaded with blanks from an earlier scene.

And again, Hall was safety officer but the 1st is usually safety officer on every set, this isn’t relevant. A safety officer isn’t allowed to check a deadly weapon for you, only you and the armourer are.

The rules aren’t flexible allowing you to ignore them if the armourer is off-set, the budget is tight, schedule rushed, someone else tells you it’s safe etc. A gun that can fire any round is a deadly weapon. Baldwin’s lawyer can claim all he wants about his client, but the fact is Baldwin knows gun safety rules on film sets as they are the same everywhere in the states.

As an aside Baldwin also claimed he didn’t pull the trigger even though the gun was analysed and it was concluded it could only fire from the trigger being pulled and the rehearsal footage online shows Baldwin doing quick draws with his finger on the trigger…

[Lemmy Caution]

Did anyone answer why none of the other producers are being charged? If Baldwin is being (partially) charged as a producer, shouldn't every producer get that same charge?

This is my thought too. The producers should collectively be in the dock because the buck stops with them, but charging Baldwin for being the actor who had the misfortune of holding the gun is bullshit.

Simply because they didn't shoot and kill anyone. Baldwin's is primarily being charged with negligence for his role in handling the fatal gun. But his dual role as producer/exec for a not very safe production enhances his knowledge of the dangers at play and arguably heightens his duty of care. He wouldn't have been criminally charged if he was just a producer (were other producers even on set at the time of the fatal rehearsal or aware of the crew walkout hours earlier?). The production company was fined $136K by New Mex OSHA, the maximum allowed for a small movie shoot (under $20M budget) and settled a civil suit over the death. That is, the production was held liable for safety violations and settled a civil suit. The general purpose of a company is to limit and offer broad protection from personal liability (financial, criminal, etc).

Baldwin's producer role affects what he knew or should have known about the safety issues on set and failure to remedy such dangers. The earlier misfires, cheaping out on the armorer, the crew walkout over safety. Obviously, Baldwin was more than just a producer/exec for the film, but he was also more than just an actor too.

The standard of reasonable care due is dependent upon circumstances and information (what the person knew or should have known). Guns are inherently dangerous and every reasonable person knows not to point them at another person and to make absolutely certain one is loaded or not. The movie set complicates some of this, as there can be a legit reason to point a gun towards someone, but only after careful checking with professionals involved.

The analogy of a truck with bad brakes fails, because a reasonable driver is not expected to test or inspect the brakes or suspect the brakes may be unsafe. However, alter the landscape -- the driver knew the brakes had a history of failing, knew the mechanic was lazy/drunk/careless, and the driver was driving too fast -- and it would be rather easy to argue that a reasonable duty of care was not exercised.

The duty of reasonable care adjusts with the given circumstances. The classic legal example is a pet dog is allowed one free bite. But after your dog has bitten someone, you are now aware your pooch is potentially dangerous and should exercise due care (perhaps a muzzle, short leash, warning people who try to pet your dog, etc). However, if you have a breed of dog known to be aggressive (bulldog, doberman, etc.) than you should know of the danger and your doggie doesn't get to chomp on anybody even once, as you owe a duty of care from the outset.

Guns. Guns are inherently dangerous, a type of weaponry. So all analogies without a gun or similarly dangerous/deadly weapon don't hold up for me.

Looking at the Actors' Equity Gun Safety Guidelines, a few stand out and are applicable:

Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.

Follow all instructions given by the qualified instructor.
(Ed: which implies, don't follow gun instructions from others)

Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.

Use protective shields for all off stage cast within close proximity to any shots fired.

Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.

When you go by the book and follow standard/best practices, you are generally protected and absolved of liability. Because you exercised reasonable care and due caution. Accidents happen. When you cut corners or deviate from the known/accepted standards, you open yourself up to potential civil and/or criminal liability. Accidents happen much more often when there is carelessness, and liability can be attributed from that. Negligence is usually a standard in civil cases, but when negligence results in death, it can be criminally charged.

[ntnon]

Forget about live ammunition - a blank will easily kill if you’re close enough to the person you’re pointing the weapon at.

Which he wasn't, though.

It wouldn’t make him a diva to request the armourer in this situation - it is literally the norm on a film set.

Would it mitigate things (or absolve him) if he had requested the armourer and his concern been waived away? My offhand 'diva' point was in the implication that shutting down a set personally is under most circumstances criticised, whether or not the logic is sound - because it affects everyone.

And again, Hall was safety officer but the 1st is usually safety officer on every set, this isn’t relevant. A safety officer isn’t allowed to check a deadly weapon for you, only you and the armourer are.

Then (1) What's the point of a safety officer?, (2) Why call them 'safety' officer? and more importantly (3) How could "you" (actor) be a more reasonable individual to [also] check the weapon than said SAFETY officer..?

As an aside Baldwin also claimed he didn’t pull the trigger even though the gun was analysed and it was concluded it could only fire from the trigger being pulled and the rehearsal footage online shows Baldwin doing quick draws with his finger on the trigger…

This seems to be quite an important and overlooked aside - I assume it would be hard to tell (and easy to claim), but there is certainly a technical world of difference between [someone] "shooting" a gun and IT "firing". And however improbable it is said to be, oddities can occur - hence, of course, the very many safety procedures that ought to be followed...

[ntnon]

Did anyone answer why none of the other producers are being charged? If Baldwin is being (partially) charged as a producer, shouldn't every producer get that same charge?

This is my thought too. The producers should collectively be in the dock because the buck stops with them, but charging Baldwin for being the actor who had the misfortune of holding the gun is bullshit.

Simply because they didn't shoot and kill anyone. Baldwin's is primarily being charged with negligence for his role in handling the fatal gun. But his dual role as producer/exec for a not very safe production enhances his knowledge of the dangers at play and arguably heightens his duty of care... Baldwin's producer role affects what he knew or should have known about the safety issues on set and failure to remedy such dangers. The earlier misfires, cheaping out on the armorer, the crew walkout over safety. Obviously, Baldwin was more than just a producer/exec for the film, but he was also more than just an actor too.

But surely that's the point - since reports stress that he's being charged, in part, for being a producer with heightened (theoretical) knowledge and responsibility for what he should have known about surrounding curcumstances.. so too should anyone with the same knowledge be held similarly accountable, surely?

The analogy of a truck with bad brakes fails, because a reasonable driver is not expected to test or inspect the brakes or suspect the brakes may be unsafe. However, alter the landscape -- the driver knew the brakes had a history of failing, knew the mechanic was lazy/drunk/careless..

Theorising and extrapolating from a tenuous analogy... is it outside the bounds of reasonable speculation to wonder if the Safety Officer's pronouncement of a cold weapon WAS an attempt at a second opinion/checkup? i.e. If there was concern over a naive armourer, and a feasible desire for a second opinion, could that have been a rationale for not having her present and relying on someone else..?

Looking at the Actors' Equity Gun Safety Guidelines, a few stand out and are applicable:

Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.

Follow all instructions given by the qualified instructor.
(Ed: which implies, don't follow gun instructions from others)

Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.

(1) Is it unreasonable to think that the Safety person was a 'qualified instructor' (or simply to presume that anyone declaring a weapon safe MUST be aware of what they are saying)..? and (2) the caveat for safety procedures when aiming at/towards a living target (a) means that there are procedures for such cases, and (b) surely also extend to anyone who could be aimed at - viz. they should move out of the line of sight.

Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.

I wonder if it had been test-fired..?

When you go by the book and follow standard/best practices, you are generally protected and absolved of liability. Because you exercised reasonable care and due caution. Accidents happen. When you cut corners or deviate from the known/accepted standards, you open yourself up to potential civil and/or criminal liability. Accidents happen much more often when there is carelessness, and liability can be attributed from that. Negligence is usually a standard in civil cases, but when negligence results in death, it can be criminally charged.

The sticking point for me is the IMPLICATION - and it may be just that, and the media focusing attention unreasonable - that Baldwin's "carelessness" and negligence is GREATER than several others'. And I find that unfair and unreasonable; his greatest act of carelessness seems rooted in trusting others to do their job(s).. which may have been reckless or unreasonable given the surrounding circumstances, but still seems secondary to the failures of others.

There's a specific quote from a claimed-armourer that I found (screenshot from Twitter) that again claims that an actor never checks a weapon. I don't know how that squares with the guidelines quoted here, but it seems important (if accurate).

[Lemmy Caution]

Gun:
What I read is that the FBI tested the gun. According to Baldwin's legal team, the FBI had trouble getting the gun to fire even using the trigger. Possibly had one misfire via the hammer. And then the gun broke into pieces, presumably preempting Baldwin's team from doing any independent analysis.
So they plan to dispute the FBI gun testing and results.

Safety Officer:
I am very uncomfortable at this notion that the 1st AD is usually the Safety Officer but it's just a largely empty title. I assume there are standard duties of a film production safety officer listed in industry guidelines. That the title does confer some responsibility, comes with various duties, etc. -- whether or not in practice it is treated casually. Presumably each production is required to have a safety officer, for safety and insurance purposes. Is the Safety Officer the immediate supervisor of the armorer and prop department? I would imagine/assume the safety officer has work responsibilities and legal responsibilities.

Baldwin:
The talk mainly focuses on Baldwin because he is famous and he held the fatal gun. Pretty simple. But it seems Reed and Halls both were charged the same as Baldwin. It's up to a jury to assign blame, if/when this gets to trial.

[Peacock]

So in response to the theoretical set shut down if the armourer refused or was prevented from coming on set if Baldwin requested her before using the gun… this is just nonsense. The set wouldn’t be shut down. End of. Reed would get radioed and the crew would either wait for her to proceed with the rehearsal or they would rehearse with Baldwin using his fingers or a non-gun prop until Reed arrived. Production wouldn’t be shut down nor would Baldwin be labelled a diva. (If he refused to rehearse until he had a cappuccino he would be)

Safety officer. The first AD is obviously boss on set so it makes sense for them to oversee what is happening around them and halt anyone acting dangerously. During a take with stunts they will then clearly pass on control of the set to the stunt co-ordinator for the duration of the take and they will ensure everyone involved is acting safely.

The idea of a ‘safety officer’ is sort of overstated though as no one refers to the 1st as the safety officer. They refer to them as the 1st. They just know that the 1st does the health and safety speech at the start of each potentially hazardous location and that the 1st has final say on if something is safe or not.

However the 1st delegates control to specific departments - the 1st wouldn’t know if an explosive device is armed on not by looking at it they would trust the SFX team to communicate that.

Being in charge of set safety doesn’t mean you can break safety rules. The 1st can’t keep a child safe by going into a room alone with them without a chaperone present - despite the first being a safety officer. Nor can the 1st rig a stunt harness or handle firearms (I considered Hall the most responsible party in this tragic situation until I spoke to some armourers about the details).

Just because there’s a busy moment on set it doesn’t mean an actor is allowed to point a potentially loaded weapon at someone without checking if it has been loaded or not. The rules don’t go out the window when you’re busy. And if someone tells you to break those rules and you willingly agree to break them - that’s on you. You’re the one with the smoking gun.

To be clear I believe Reed is responsible but only for all the live rounds kicking around which should never have been anywhere near that set.

Finally in response to the short reply above to my message about the dangers of blanks. A blank can easily kill within 5 feet and depending where the gun is pointed is dangerous up to 10 metres away. Look at the shot they were rehearsing and tell me Hutchins wasn’t close to Baldwin.

[Lemmy Caution]

If I have the timing right, part of the crew walked off set in the morning in protest over safety concerns. And then right after lunch, a scene with a gun was rehearsed while the armorer was absent, with tragic results.

[Lemmy Caution]

Overlong article on the tragedy and charges and such.
About halfway down, it details the two misfires of blanks, including who was handling the weapon and the presumed causes. Also, quotes some emails about Reed trying to do her job and being restricted.

Nothing directly about why Reed wasn't present at the fatal rehearsal.

As for the timing, seems much of the camera crew walked out the day before the accident, but then returned the next morning, the day of the incident, to retrieve their equipment. I had forgotten that.

[ntnon]

So in response to the theoretical set shut down if the armourer refused or was prevented from coming on set if Baldwin requested her before using the gun… this is just nonsense. The set wouldn’t be shut down. End of.

Fair enough. My thinking was that her lack of presence was a decision made by someone above Baldwin, and as such not within his purview to demand. Someone else's call; someone else's responsibility.

Safety officer. The first AD is obviously boss on set so it makes sense for them to oversee what is happening around them and halt anyone acting dangerously. During a take with stunts they will then clearly pass on control of the set to the stunt co-ordinator for the duration of the take and they will ensure everyone involved is acting safely.

The idea of a ‘safety officer’ is sort of overstated though as no one refers to the 1st as the safety officer. They refer to them as the 1st. They just know that the 1st does the health and safety speech at the start of each potentially hazardous location and that the 1st has final say on if something is safe or not.

However the 1st delegates control to specific departments - the 1st wouldn’t know if an explosive device is armed on not by looking at it they would trust the SFX team to communicate that.

Being in charge of set safety doesn’t mean you can break safety rules. The 1st can’t keep a child safe by going into a room alone with them without a chaperone present - despite the first being a safety officer. Nor can the 1st rig a stunt harness or handle firearms (I considered Hall the most responsible party in this tragic situation until I spoke to some armourers about the details).

Given the purported fact that 1st handed the gun and called it safe/cold, ostensibily in contravention of several rules, I remain curious most as to why this 'breaking of safety rules' still seems to factor so lowly into apportioning of blame and error.

Just because there’s a busy moment on set it doesn’t mean an actor is allowed to point a potentially loaded weapon at someone without checking if it has been loaded or not. The rules don’t go out the window when you’re busy. And if someone tells you to break those rules and you willingly agree to break them - that’s on you. You’re the one with the smoking gun.

The first part there still reads as secondary to "just because the armourer is not present doesn't mean someone else can take on their role" UNLESS that's normal, and it clearly isn't.

The second part sounds disingenuous - if you order an assassination, you are as guilty as the person who carries out the task. And, logically, as the enabler and proximate cause of a loaded gun being in play, again.. here the someone(s) beginning to break the rules must be more at fault than the person holding the weapon.

To be clear I believe Reed is responsible but only for all the live rounds kicking around which should never have been anywhere near that set.

..without which there's no loaded gun to hand over, and without the handover, there's no accident. This is "For Want of a Nail.." but with shorter logical leaps and a greater chain of causality.

Finally in response to the short reply above to my message about the dangers of blanks. A blank can easily kill within 5 feet and depending where the gun is pointed is dangerous up to 10 metres away. Look at the shot they were rehearsing and tell me Hutchins wasn’t close to Baldwin.

I did not know that, and will revise that opinion. I'd read that a blank could be deadly only if aimed at particular places (viz., the head) and fired at extremely close range. It continues to stagger me that there have been so relatively few (widely reported) deaths and injuries down the years...

[ntnon]

SAG-AFTRA says the charges against Baldwin are wrong.

Their Safety Bulletin 1 leads with sentence noting blanks can kill and thatblive ammunition should never be near a set, and then says, in part,

The Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) will be the individual acting in the interest of the Producer for obtaining. maintaining and handling all firearms for the production. He/she will work in conjunction with the production's designated Safety Representative to assure that the following standards are adhered to.

The numbered guidelines here lead off with #1: Do not point a gun at anyone, but if you must consult with

the Property Master (or, in his/her absence, the weapons handler and/or other appropriate personnel determined by the locality or the needs of the production) or other safety representative, such as the First A.D./Stage Manager. Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.

So the SAG-AFTRA guideline - albeit referring primarily to directions - specifically puts the onus on the First AD in the absence of a property master, which necessarily means that the guideline is formulated because this happens AND that individual has the wherewithall to make such calls.

Guideline #13 says the same individuals make the call on where personnel should be standing to ensure their safety.

These guidelines also specifically state that actors should be "allowed to witness" the loading/checking of weapons. Not participate. Not required to witness.

[Lemmy Caution]

Alec Baldwin on Friday asked a judge in New Mexico to dismiss a five-year firearm sentencing enhancement in the charges against him, saying it is unconstitutional

I thought it was going to be some right wing style argument that carrying a gun everywhere is a constitutional right so extra penalties for committing a crime while exercising your 2nd A rights are illegal. But instead it turns out the 5 year extra prison sentence for gun crimes is a new NM law passed only after the Rust shooting. So Baldwin seemingly has a good case to get that extra penalty dismissed in his case. This would be a big deal, reducing Baldwin's potential jeopardy to a max of 1.5 years in jail. Making plea bargaining or a shorter or even probationary sentence more likely if found guilty. Also, the higher alternative charge would likely be dropped if it carries the same sentence as the lesser charge but requires greater proof.

Otherwise:

Baldwin’s attorneys also filed a motion on Tuesday to disqualify the special prosecutor in the case, asserting that her position as a state lawmaker constitutionally prohibits her from holding any authority in a judicial capacity.

Always good to have top notch lawyers and a big legal team.

[ntnon]

I assume the arguments stemming from legal technicalities are in addition to more basic points.. meanwhile, the money for the resultantant court case would be better spent on her surviving family.

[Lemmy Caution]

Criminal and civil cases are distinct. There's no either/or option. Hutchins spouse and child already reached a settlement with the film production company. Which I assume also includes Baldwin personally. Hutchins parents recently brought a civil suit against the Rust production company and Baldwin. Will also likely be settled in my opinion. So her survivors have received compensation, with likely more to come. This should have no impact on the separate criminal charges/case.

[captveg]

But instead it turns out the 5 year extra prison sentence for gun crimes is a new NM law passed only after the Rust shooting. So Baldwin seemingly has a good case to get that extra penalty dismissed in his case. This would be a big deal, reducing Baldwin's potential jeopardy to a max of 1.5 years in jail. Making plea bargaining or a shorter or even probationary sentence more likely if found guilty. Also, the higher alternative charge would likely be dropped if it carries the same sentence as the lesser charge but requires greater proof.

This charge was indeed dropped, which only makes sense considering it was ex post facto.

[Lemmy Caution]

I really don't like the snarky, petty tone which the prosecutors have adopted.
Latest example:

Heather Brewer, a spokeswoman for the district attorney, said the prosecution had dropped the firearm enhancement to “avoid further litigious distractions by Mr. Baldwin and his attorneys.”

“The prosecution’s priority is securing justice, not securing billable hours for big-city attorneys,” Ms. Brewer said.

That's wholly unnecessary. They should act more professional.
Simply say that the greater charge with the 5 year gun enhancement charge has been dropped. Maybe say it's in order to simplify and streamline the case. Or possibly even admit that the charge was arguably inappropriate.

I don't get this sparring with and demeaning Baldwin's legal team. Try the case in court, not in public. Of course Baldwin has every right to the best legal representation he can afford. Who will no doubt hold the local prosecutors to a higher standard than they are probably used to. Probably balances out the times they get to run circles around some incompetent or underprepared lawyers or certain public defenders (some public defenders are terrific and have expertise).

Also having the prosecution engage in such gratuitous insults just risks tainting the jury pool, and can even backfire, creating some sympathy for Baldwin. The overall impression I get is that the prosecutors feel insecure and threatened by Baldwin's legal team.

Anyway, clearly a win for Baldwin and a flub by the prosecutors. BTW, "litigious distractions" here refers to filing a simple and successful motion to quash a likely unconstitutional ex post facto law, removing the threat of significant jail time. And reducing the chance of any jail time. Now B's lawyers can focus on the elements of one law, and don't have to waste time/effort arguing that the law is ex post facto, or why the movie set gun incident shouldn't be covered by a mandatory 5 year sentence for gun crimes if the enhanced charge remained. Contrary to the prosecution's snark, by getting the higher charged dropped after filing a single motion, Baldwin actually saved a bunch of money by reducing the complexity of the case and the associated billable hours. So they couldn't get the charges or their snark right.

While this won't rise to the level of the OJ case, there are often mistakes and short cuts, shady characters and sloppy procedures in most prosecutions* (not even getting into issues such as police perjury, jail informants, withheld evidence, etc.). A good deal go unchallenged. We're already seeing the Baldwin lawyers catching the prosecution bumbling and flatfooted. The prosecution should at minimum know and understand what laws apply. No wonder they sound so defensive. Worried they are about to be Marcia Clarked.

__________________________________________________________
* Anecdotally, my sister during an alcoholic phase was once arrested for DUI. Of which she was almost certainly guilty. But her public defender knew to check the breathalyzer, which turned out not to have been calibrated for longer than is standard/required. Therefore the results were questionable or arguably invalid. So the prosecutor dropped the charges. Presumably the arresting officer didn't conduct any other field sobriety test and so had no reliable evidence. Which is why you want lawyers who specialize in a given area, repeat players who know the ins and outs. Score one for a knowledgeable public defender over sloppy police work.

[ntnon]

I really don't like the snarky, pretty tone which the prosecutors have adopted...

BTW, "litigious distractions" here refers to filing a simple and successful motion to quash a likely unconstitutional ex post facto law, removing the threat of significant jail time... Contrary to the prosecution's snark, by getting the higher charged dropped after filing a single motion, Baldwin actually saved a bunch of money by reducing the complexity of the case and the associated billable hours. So they couldn't get the charges or their snark right.

Exactly right.

Rude and unnecessary, but also wrongheaded.

[ntnon]

Thinking about it a little more, it almost sounds like defamation - implying that the lawyers are only after money not truth.

[Murdoch]

It sounds like the prosecutors are upset about facing meritorious arguments. Their characterization of a legitimate constitutional argument as "litigious distractions" tells me everything I need to know about their office and its pursuit of "justice."

[Lemmy Caution]

For anyone interested in some of the specifics, according to the NYT:

The version that was on the New Mexico books when Ms. Hutchins was killed says the firearm enhancement applies when a weapon is “brandished” in the commission of a noncapital felony. The newer version imposes a minimum five-year sentence if a firearm was “discharged” in the commission of a noncapital felony.

According to the law’s definition of “brandished,” the action must be done “with intent to intimidate or injure a person.” Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers argued in court papers that the prosecutors had not accused the actor of that behavior in legal filings or public statements.

It appears NM tried to limit when the gun enhancement charge would apply, by requiring a shot to be fired during the crime, from the previous threatening with a gun standard. Ironically, this reduction of the scope of the gun enhancement included the Rust shooting, whereas it would have been excluded under the broader previous standard.

[ntnon]

For anyone interested in some of the specifics, according to the NYT:

The version that was on the New Mexico books when Ms. Hutchins was killed says the firearm enhancement applies when a weapon is “brandished” in the commission of a noncapital felony. The newer version imposes a minimum five-year sentence if a firearm was “discharged” in the commission of a noncapital felony.

According to the law’s definition of “brandished,” the action must be done “with intent to intimidate or injure a person.” Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers argued in court papers that the prosecutors had not accused the actor of that behavior in legal filings or public statements.

It appears NM tried to limit when the gun enhancement charge would apply, by requiring a shot to be fired during the crime, from the previous threatening with a gun standard. Ironically, this reduction of the scope of the gun enhancement included the Rust shooting, whereas it would have been excluded under the broader previous standard.

Interesting indeed. The impression given elsewhere has sometimes that the amendment was (partly) a reaction to the Rust shooting and designed to treat many incidents more harshly; here, you are saying it was actually a smart downgrading of the law to apply more narrowly.

TANGENT: Quibbling over what might-or-might-not constitute "brandishing" under the old guideline aside, the broader scope of the revision is arguably troubling - does it imply that threating someone with a gun is now significantly less serious than a threat that includes a warning shot...?

[Lemmy Caution]

Another pre-trial win for Baldwin's legal team.

A special prosecutor who doubles as a state legislator is stepping down from her role in the manslaughter case against actor Alec Baldwin in the death of a cinematographer on a New Mexico film set.

Baldwin’s legal team in February sought to disqualify special prosecutor and Republican state Rep. Andrea Reeb of Clovis based on constitutional provisions that safeguard the separation of powers between distinct branches of government.

Reeb said in a statement Tuesday that she “will not allow questions about my serving as a legislator and prosecutor to cloud the real issue at hand.”

I like how again the prosecutors don't admit any wrongdoing or legitimacy to Baldwin's motions, claiming they are voluntarily acting because of their heartfelt dedication to justice. Don't know how it will affect the case, but certainly a disruption that cannot help the prosecution.

[hearthesilence]

All criminal charges against Alec Baldwin have been dropped.

As of now, the film's weapons handler, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, still has charges standing against her.

"We are pleased with the decision to dismiss the case against Alec Baldwin and we encourage a proper investigation into the facts and circumstances of this tragic accident," said the actor's attorneys, Luke Nikas amd Alex Spiro.

EDIT:

The decision to drop the charges against Mr. Baldwin came after the new prosecutors reviewed new evidence that showed that the gun he was practicing with had been modified before it was delivered to the set, according to an official close to the investigation who was granted anonymity to discuss the case. That undercut the prosecution’s original argument that the gun could not have fired unless Mr. Baldwin had pulled the trigger, the official said.

It is possible that prosecutors could decide to file new charges against Mr. Baldwin.

“New facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis in the case against Alec Baldwin,” Kari Morrissey, one of the new special prosecutors, said in a statement. “Therefore, we cannot proceed under the current time constraints and on the facts and evidence turned over by law enforcement in its existing form. This decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled.”

[Brian C]

Yeah, seems like a pure (and rather petty) face-saving move … unless they find video of Baldwin plotting to kill her and make it look like a prop-related accident, there’s no way they’ll refile down the road.

[Lemmy Caution]

Not terribly clear from the scant information released. But certainly good news for Baldwin, and a big step towards getting out of this altogether.

The prosecutors might want to see how their case goes against Reed, before deciding on any re-charges for Baldwin. The antagonism between the prosecutors and Baldwin's side makes it likely they'll let him twist in uncertainty for quite some time. I wonder if Baldwin will have his high-powered legal team assist Reed, as her case potentially affects charges against him. And his production team put a young person in a difficult situation, as an inexperienced armorer handling dual roles and having her time as armorer, and for safety, strictly limited.

Armorer Reed claimed that the guns/ammo were intentionally sabotaged. I wonder if this could have something to do with that, or if the alleged modification occurred much earlier. Baldwin's team claimed the gun broke into pieces due to FBI testing, preventing further firing tests.

[captveg]

It appears prosecutors have predominantly turned their intention to armorer Gutierrez-Reed.

""Witnesses in the current case will testify that Defendant Gutierrez was drinking heavily and smoking marijuana in the evenings during the shooting of Rust. It is likely that Defendant Gutierrez was hung over when she inserted a live bullet into a gun that she knew was going to be used at some point by an actor while filming a shooting scene with other actors and crew members.""
...
Jason Bowles, Gutierrez-Reed’s lawyer, responded to the claims Wednesday. “The prosecution has so mishandled this case and the case is so weak that they are now resorting to character assassination tactics to further taint the press and jury pool,” he said in a statement.