Alec Baldwin’s Lawyers Claim Charges Against Him in Fatal Shooting on Rust Set Have Been Dropped
“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.”
This is unexpected. Alec Baldwin’s lawyers claim the criminal charges against the actor over the fatal shooting on the Rust movie set have been dropped:
Baldwin, 65, was charged with involuntary manslaughter over the Oct. 21, 2021 shooting of 42-year-old cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the New Mexico set of the Western movie, after a prop pistol he was using for a scene unexpectedly fired a real bullet.
He pleaded not guilty to the charges, brought by the Santa Fe district attorney.
In a statement to The Post, Baldwin’s lawyers Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro said, “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.”
“Rust” director Joel Souza was standing behind Hutchins viewing a camera angle as Baldwin rehearsed a scene in which he was to draw his revolver and point it at the camera when the tragic incident occurred.
He was also wounded in the shooting, with the bullet striking his shoulder.
The Santa Fe District Attorney’s Office has not responded to numerous outlets requesting a statement.
Baldwin went back to the Rust set today to resume shooting.
The preliminary hearing should have taken place on May 3.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
And Joe Doakes would be held without bail on several charges.
“Baldwin went back to the Rust set today to resume shooting.”
I’ll bet!
Which members of the cast/crew is he going to shoot?
Subotai Bahadur
You’ll be able to tell what order the scenes were shot in.
In all the newer scenes, the camera films Baldwin from the back.
I presume they hired a new cinematographer.
Phrasing!
Well, as the old saying goes, it’s better to be a Democrat.
Yep, everything’s on the level,
— The check’s in the mail
— “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges”
— Justice is blind
— No one is above the law
— There is no plan to put the USA into a world government; none whatsoever
Surprise, surprise, surprise.
“It’s (D)ifferent when we do it!”
Why is this unexpected? Seriously. He is a Leftist celebrity. Laws only apply to those non-Leftists/Protected Classes without power or wealth. If you are a Leftist celebrity, politician, bureaucrat, or related to them and they are willing to exert themselves to protect you, then you are immune from the law, I will admit that this is a little more blatant than most cases, but after all, he is a Hollywood celebrity and they have a movie to finish.
You can pretty much bet that the media is going to push the movie Rust to try to raise its gross receipts, and it will get some sort of Academy Awards.
After all, it is not like Baldwin entered the Capitol Building with a police escort.
Subotai Bahadur
It seems just to me. The problem is unjust to the right wing.
I said on this blog months ago Baldwin would serve no time for this crime, yet if you or I had recklessly shot 2 people, killing one, we would’ve already been arrested, tried, convicted, and serving 5-10 in the state pen.
But Baldwin has leftist privilege, so phfffft.
In return for having the charges dropped Baldwin has agreed to let Will Smith slap him.
Does he get to spend the night with Demi before, or afterwards?
I have argued from the beginning that Baldwin probably has NO culpability as an actor. Movie sets have their own rules, totally unrelated to the rules at a gun range. That’s why they have an Armorer on set; that’s why an Assistant Director looked at the pistol and declared it “cold” before he handed it to Baldwin. The Assistant Director made a plea deal in return for his testimony, but the Armorer is in serious jeopardy. Her only defense that I can think of is that covid rules prevented her being as responsible as she wanted to be. My opinion is that this young woman in her 20s lost control of the rambunctious males on the set. There were complaints about an unsafe set, and several crew members left.
And that, I think, is where Alec Baldwin has culpability – as a producer, not an actor. He may have had some responsibility to ensure a safe set, but I don’t really know what his responsibilities were.
What I do know is that only a fool would put a loaded gun in the hands of any actor. Actors earn their living by emoting, by being emotional, and they are in general tremendously egotistical and dramatic. You don’t really think Kevin Costner has spent his life on a ranch in the Yellowstone area, do you? Do you really think Nicolas Cage is an expert with a pistol, except on a movie stage? Or that Liam Neeson is an expert assassin? It’s all make-believe.
“You don’t really think Kevin Costner has spent his life on a ranch in the Yellowstone area, do you? Do you really think Nicolas Cage is an expert with a pistol, except on a movie stage? Or that Liam Neeson is an expert assassin? It’s all make-believe.”
and yet, congress and the media ACT like it is real. Remember when they brought Julia Roberts in to testify on safe drinking water? Or any other of a 100 actors to testify on something they did in a film like it is real life (I know I have seen other stunts like that over the years; Julia Roberts was just the first I remember, so it stuck in my head)
That’s our Congress for you!
New Mexico law has no special carve out when it comes to actors. Every adult who discharges a firearm is accountable, even if they didn’t know the firearm was loaded. You don’t need to be an “expert” to be charged for shooting and killing someone.
As stands now, the only person who isn’t going to be charged and prosecuted is the person who actually killed Hutchins. I can imagine future cases involving shootings where the shooter claims they were handed a gun and didn’t know it was loaded. No harm, no foul, eh?
Can you cite the “actor exception” to the homicide statutes?
The actor was probably following instructions from the director … who was himself wounded. But I’m pretty sure the New Mexico prosecutors know the laws in their state. Doesn’t New Mexico recruit films to be shot in their state? Are they likely to be unaware?
The question isn’t whether the prosecutors know the law. They can’t justify dropping these charges using the because the issues you brought up don’t exist in the law. The question is why the prosecutors decided (or got told) that this prosecution wouldn’t happen for reasons other than the law.
And I’m not convinced you have any special expertise in this area of the law. I believe most filming crews are heavily unionized, I also believe film sets follow procedures dealing with fire arms and other dangerous weapons, although I don’t know under what authority those rules were set.. But that is why there was an Armorer on the set. And that Armorer was the person who loaded the gun. The Assistant Director checked the gun andactors to behave responsibly with guns. That isn’t what they’re hired for, thatr isn’t what they do.
Cincyjan,
Every individual who handles a firearm is expected to treat the firearm as if it is loaded. You never point a firearm at anything you don’t want a bullet to impact. There’s no carve out based upon industry affiliation.
The other glaring issue is that the entertainment industry has for decades now altered their internal firearm handling process to mandate not pointing a firearm at anyone.
The problem with your whole argument here is that both points above easily refute it. Even if the set staff was negligent in their role(s) and you completely discount standard firearm safety guidelines, Baldwin violated the entertainment industry guidelines by pointing the firearm at another person.
I’m don’t have a special expertise in that area of the law. But, I do have at least one up on you in that I can both read and understand the things I read.
Your argument is simple: Someone whom was trusted by Alec Baldwin told him the gun was safe so Alec bears no criminal responsibility for having pointed it at a person and pulled the trigger resulting in a death and an injury.
That isn’t how it works in any place where the law is followed. There isn’t a “well, they told me it was safe!” exception in the law. A filming set can make all the rules it wants, but those don’t modify the criminal code in any way. If my wife hands me a pistol, tells me it’s unloaded, and I accidentally kill my child, then I have committed a crime. I failed to take sufficient precautions with an inherently dangerous object resulting in the death of a person.
Now, that is ignoring a producer on the show being previously aware that safety protocols weren’t being followed because people left their jobs due to the unsafe environment.
You know who does have particular expertise in that area of the law? Andrew Branca. And he already did a big long article on LI about (among other things) the lack of a “movie exception” to NM homicide statutes and Baldwin’s clear culpability under those statutes. Maybe you (cincyjan) should go back and read it before embarrassing yourself further.
You should read the April 21 article on the Fox News web site. They took the time to interview two defense attorneys and a former federal prosecutor. They all agreed.
Well, having watched some FoxNews coverage from April 21, I have discovered two things. 1) Prosecutors say he isn’t absolved of culpability but claim they need more time and 2) There is speculation that the firing mechanism of the pistol was modified such that Alec bears no culpability.
I don’t have enough information to evaluate 2.
The FBI testing and crew interviews admitting they used that revolver for target practice makes the sudden claim the revolver was modified a garbage attempt to avoid responsibility. The FBI applied so much force in testing to try and make that revolver fire without pulling the trigger, they actually damaged the firearm.
He has culpability but he has liberal privilege
“Movie sets have their own rules, totally unrelated to the rules at a gun range. That’s why they have an Armorer on set; that’s why an Assistant Director looked at the pistol and declared it “cold” before he handed it to Baldwin.”
Wrong. The rules for handling firearms are not dependent on whether you are on a movie set or at a gun range. You NEVER point a weapon at anything you do not intend to destroy.
And yet, look how it’s ended. It’s almoast as if you were wrong.
Au contraire, dimwit.
It ended in 𝒅𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒉.
It’s obvious you should never handle a firearm.
There was no armorer on set. That was supposed to be a precaution against COVID, but it sure looks like cost-cutting to me, and Baldwin-as-producer participated in that decision.
What Baldwin-as-actor is unquestionably responsible for is going out on set with a gun in his hand, when he _knew_ the production was unsafe – because there were two or three earlier negligent discharges. Nearly everyone present was similarly responsible, but Baldwin was the person they needed most. If he had refused to act or rehearse until the safety problems were identified and corrected, the only priority would have been satisfying their star actor/producer that the set was safe.
Or if he lacked the balls to shut down the production, he could have simply not pointed the gun at the persons lined up behind the camera. I don’t know if the script even called for a down-the-muzzle camera view (which I think is the only view that cannot be faked by camera angles while keeping the gun pointed safely), but if it did, surely it’s possible to have the camera operated from off to one side and no one standing in front of the gun.
Disgusting
Disgusting
Disgusting
I imagine the murdered woman’s family will have a lot of feelings about this
Now there’s the civil route. It worked for Nicole Simpson’s family.
I think that is foreclosed. From what I understand there was a sealed settlement. Somewhere along the line, the widower became a co-producer of the film. I suspect any “penalty” has become a cost of production and paid for by the movie. “Rule of Law”.
Subotai Bahadur
Really? Last time I checked (and it’s been a while) OJ Simpson never paid the court ordered restitution to the family for the death of Nicole Simpson. He gave the Simpson family the middle finger salute, claimed “extreme poverty” (poor guy was so broke he had to golf on public courses, the horror!) and never paid once cent to the Simpson famiuly.
So yeah, that worked out really well. NOT
Oh. Well. All I knew is that the family had won the suit. I had no idea they had never collected. But from my own life experience at “winning” small claims suits, I fully understand how such a thing can happen.
Democrats subscribe to the Pro-Choice ethical religion. I need a “hero”, a Democrat “hero”, he has to shoot first, and ask questions later… never.
Took long enough for the check to clear.
Day 1 of this sad event I predicted he wouldn’t pay any criminal price
What will be the “decent interval” before he is cast in his next rôle?
How many Hollywood celebrity anti-gunners will speak out about this travesty?
That’s going to be interesting if true. Shoot two people, killing one and walk b/c the prosecutor aka the State won’t support charges through a trial? NM is a quirky State with a libertarian ish bent in some ways. Future juries may very well decide to use this as an excuse for nullification. There are always consequences to decisions.
Liberal privilege is a real thing I guess
“How many Hollywood celebrity anti-gunners will speak out about this travesty?”
Good example of a rhetorical question.
Well, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet.
Today’s news is that charges were dropped because the prosecution felt unprepared to proceed, in light of an unexpected workload of new evidence that requires investigation. The charges were dropped to avoid the clock running out, and may be reimposed in the future once the new investigation has progressed.
“Baldwin went back to the Rust set today to resume shooting.”
Did he reload first?
Oddly, it was Fox News which asked prominent defense attorneys about the case. They had three experts saying the case was shaky at best, Baldwin was over-charged, and that the case was textbook ‘how not to prosecute.’ I would have expected that kind of analysis from someone on this web site … but, no, it was Fox News which looked for the other side of the story. The story is on today’s web site (April 21).