Rust movie shooting: Alex Baldwin on Trial

Vulcan begat me. Minerva me taught.
Nature my mother. Craft nourished me year by year.
Three bodies are my food. My strength is in naught.
Slaughter, wrath, waste, and noise are my children dear.
Guess, friend, what I am and how I am wrought:
Monster of sea or of land or of elsewhere?
Know me and use me and I may thee defend
And, if I be thine enemy, I may thy life end.
 
Spoiler Puppies? :
 
Last edited:
Had to watch some of the testimony given in the Rust trial for myself. Because the details I read, sounded insane.

So yeah, both the lead prosecutor and the lead detective admitted under oath, that they decided to file the new evidence in a separate folder, thereby hiding it from the defense. This evidence wasn't even turned in to be evaluated for the Baldwin trial, but for the Gutierrez-Reed trial. The prosecutor took the stand as a witness (trying to safe face I reckon, but the damage was done), which didn't help her one bit, but instead gave the defense and the judge more ammunition to sink her case. On the stand she had to admit to not having seen 3 rounds from the new evidence in person before, sinking her own argument for not disclosing it to the defense in the first place. Because those 3 rounds, did look similar to rounds collected by police on the Rust shooting location. Just... wow.

If this trial is an example of the generel professional and ethical standard in the prosecution service and law enforcement across the US, I'm beginning to understand why millions of Americans are in prison. Thankfully this prosecutor has 'only' prosecuted two cases, otherwise I reckon that the state attorney would be compelled to launch an investigation of all her convictions. Now we'll see if this will have any bearing on the Gutierrez-Reed conviction.

In all of this mess the deceased victim will see no justice, which just adds to the tragedy.
 
Make guns that are fake and fire dummy rounds, is my point--that can't fire a real round.


That is done. An automatic pistol fired for movie/tv isn't a pistol at all. Because otherwise it couldn't recoil without using live rounds. Why they needed a real revolver makes no sense.
 
That is done. An automatic pistol fired for movie/tv isn't a pistol at all. Because otherwise it couldn't recoil without using live rounds. Why they needed a real revolver makes no sense.

I have not been on a movie set, but I have fired automatic weapons with blanks. Usually, you just replace the flash suppressor with a blank firing adapter. For pistols which don't have a removable flash suppressor, this might be a special barrel, but the rest of the gun is real.

All of this does not apply to revolvers though, because those usually do not use the recoil for anything at all, so you need no modifications to a normal revolver to shoot blanks.
 
Had to watch some of the testimony given in the Rust trial for myself. Because the details I read, sounded insane.

So yeah, both the lead prosecutor and the lead detective admitted under oath, that they decided to file the new evidence in a separate folder, thereby hiding it from the defense. This evidence wasn't even turned in to be evaluated for the Baldwin trial, but for the Gutierrez-Reed trial. The prosecutor took the stand as a witness (trying to safe face I reckon, but the damage was done), which didn't help her one bit, but instead gave the defense and the judge more ammunition to sink her case. On the stand she had to admit to not having seen 3 rounds from the new evidence in person before, sinking her own argument for not disclosing it to the defense in the first place. Because those 3 rounds, did look similar to rounds collected by police on the Rust shooting location. Just... wow.

If this trial is an example of the generel professional and ethical standard in the prosecution service and law enforcement across the US, I'm beginning to understand why millions of Americans are in prison. Thankfully this prosecutor has 'only' prosecuted two cases, otherwise I reckon that the state attorney would be compelled to launch an investigation of all her convictions. Now we'll see if this will have any bearing on the Gutierrez-Reed conviction.

In all of this mess the deceased victim will see no justice, which just adds to the tragedy.


Personally, I think Baldwin should have been put on trial, and let the jury decide on the evidence. But this goes to hell when the prosecution goes to hell and fudgs up doing their jobs.
 
The last gun related death on set in Hollywood was the 90s with Brandon Lee.

When "The Crow" was adapted to a TV series a few years later, people wondered if the whole property was cursed. There was an episode in which a boat on a beach was supposed to blow up. A piece of debris struck one of the show's crew, killing him.


Dunno if anyone here besides me ever watched the old Voyagers! TV show. Jon-Erik Hexum co-starred in that, and awhile later he was in another TV show, there was a gun on-set...:

Wikipedia said:

Death[edit source]​

On October 12, 1984, the cast and crew of Cover Up were filming the seventh episode of the series, "Golden Opportunity", on Stage 18 of the 20th Century Fox lot. One of the scenes filmed that day called for Hexum's character to load cartridges into a .44 Magnum handgun, so he was provided with a functional gun and blanks. When the scene did not play as the director wanted it to in the master shot, there was a delay in filming. Hexum became restless and impatient during the delay and began playing around to lighten the mood. He had unloaded all but one (blank) round, spun it, and—simulating Russian roulette—he put the revolver to his right temple and pulled the trigger, unaware of the danger.[12]

The explosive effect of the muzzle blast caused enough blunt force trauma to fracture a quarter-sized piece of his skull and propel this into his brain, causing massive hemorrhaging.[6][13]

Hexum was rushed to Beverly Hills Medical Center, where he underwent five hours of surgery to repair his wounds.[1][13] On October 18, aged 26, six days after the accident, Hexum was declared brain dead.



Back in my musical theatre days I worked on a few shows that included guns. I was on the props crew, and made it clear that I wanted NOTHING to do with any gun that was meant to shoot anything. I didn't have the training, and didn't want to risk anyone getting hurt because I didn't know what I was doing. So someone else had charge of the guns in Kiss Me, Kate (two gangsters had to wave guns around and one of them had to shoot one), we used obvious fakes in Jesus Christ Superstar (made of wood), I don't remember if any were present on the Sound of Music set (would have been more of a costume piece than a prop), and the big one to be wary of was West Side Story. Someone else took charge of both the guns and knives in that show; I flatly refused to even touch them. The props list called for switchblades, which can't legally be purchased in Canada, so the ones our production used were flanged-up fakes. Even so, I didn't want anything to do with them.

The only prop gun I ever did handle was for Peter Pan. There was nothing in it, and the actor using it was supposed to take it out (he was a pirate), wave it a little, and put it away. It was not meant to be used as an actual weapon. So that was doable. It still scared the (censored) out of me the night I took off to watch the show from the audience. The actor dropped the gun and it fell into the orchestra pit. Captain Hook's actor quickly improvised a line: "Good thing you dropped that gun - one shot and those Indians would've been onto us!" The audience laughed; some thought it was how the scene should go, others knew it was an accident. I just sat there and facepalmed, hoping the gun hadn't been damaged.

I went backstage at intermission, to find that someone in the orchestra had turned it in, and the actor must have apologized for 5 minutes nonstop. There was a little damage - something came loose. I did a quick fix with some tape that held for the rest of that night's performance and we did a better fix the following day for the rest of the run.

Safety is also why I refused to go along with shooting arrows across the stage (easy to hurt someone in the wings, or even the audience if the shooter had spectacularly bad aim). I told the director it would be safer to change the dialogue to eliminate the need for arrows. She wasn't happy, but complied.

It was a huge relief when the fire department told me "NO!" when I called to ask about fireworks on stage (there's a bomb scene in Peter Pan). They were surprised when I said, "Thank you, that's such a relief!" I could go tell the director that the fire department had vetoed her idea as a fire hazard. I flanged up a fake with styrofoam, paint, and a string painted to look like a lit fuse. The audience was willing to suspend their disbelief and the scene worked fine.

Working with that director was a challenge, since she wanted so many flashy, ambitious things and had no clue about actual backstage logistics or safety. She's the one who wanted the live monkey and goldfish in Gypsy... but that's another story.


Thank goodness Camelot only had swords and daggers to worry about. Those were much easier to deal with!


As for my take on the situation with this movie, whatever happens on a set, no matter if it's a TV show, movie, or stage production, it's ultimately the producer's responsibility. Even if they don't have much or even any involvement with whatever something might be, if something goes wrong and someone is injured (or worse), the producer must never be able to shrug off responsibility.

Especially if weapons are involved.
 
starts sometime before with some nutjob swinging a Katana at US Special Forces troops in urban area training or whatever somewhere near Hollywood . In consideration of law they couldn't use firearms and stuff and had to wait for the Police inside a building . In Iraq they would have pumped the would be Ninja with 50 rounds even before he fell . Before putting another 150 on the ground laying dead . Like Baldwin was so active in anti-gun lobbies thing and the case "clearly provides evidence that elites and cabals protect their own with crooked laws against the wishes of ordinary Americans" or something .
 

Yeah. She loaded the firearm that killed Hutchins; the safety of the weapon was her responsibility. Justice was served with her conviction.

But the matter of the fact is, that we now know that crime scene technician Popple who worked the evidence, has given false testimony under oath; that is a fact. We have grounds for suspicion that both the lead investigator and lead prosecutor Morrissey may have lied under oath too. What is a fact, is that they 'intentionally and deliberately' concealed the existence of potential exculpatory evidence from defense. So, right now I imagine that Gutierrez-Reed's legal team are going through the case files and evidence with a comb, since the testimony from the crime scene technician and the lead investigator in her trial, is potentially also scorched by false testimony or withheld potential evidence we don't know about. May not be necessary if the Brady violation also has merit in her conviction, but we'll see...

So, if Gutierrez-Reed walks out of prison as a result of the bombshell revelations during the Baldwin trial, justice for Hutchins has not been served. But the integrity of the justice system always comes first and from that perspective, justice is preserved.
 
She loaded the firearm that killed Hutchins; the safety of the weapon was her responsibility
If you have a gun in your hand you are responsible for it.
 
If you have a gun in your hand you are responsible for it.

Baldwin was charged with reckless behavior with the weapon; he was not responsible for the weapon and its ammunition.

The jury might have found him guilty in involuntary manslaughter, they may not have. We will never know, because the prosecution helped by law enforcement, corrupted the investigation with concealing evidence and giving false testimony under oath. That is what you should be most offended by. It could be you or someone you know, being charged with a crime by a corrupt prosecutor next time.
 
Baldwin was charged with reckless behavior with the weapon; he was not responsible for the weapon and its ammunition.

The jury might have found him guilty in involuntary manslaughter, they may not have. We will never know, because the prosecution helped by law enforcement, corrupted the investigation with concealing evidence and giving false testimony under oath. That is what you should be most offended by. It could be you or someone you know, being charged with a crime by a corrupt prosecutor next time.
I am not making a legal case, but basic gun safety rules dictate that if you have a gun in your hand you have ultimate responsibility for it.
 
I am not making a legal case, but basic gun safety rules dictate that if you have a gun in your hand you have ultimate responsibility for it.

Actors can not be expected to examine prop firearms and deduce whether they are safe or not. That's why you have an expert on set with that specific responsibility and training.

Should actors also be responsible for examining a car and its brakes, throttle, engine, steering column and so on, before they enter and drive in it while shooting a scene? No, because that's ridiculous. That's the prop masters job.
 
Actors can not be expected to examine prop firearms and deduce whether they are safe or not. That's why you have an expert on set with that specific responsibility and training.

Should actors also be responsible for examining a car and its brakes, throttle, engine, steering column and so on, before they enter and drive in it while shooting a scene?
I would expect anyone using a car or a gun in their job to be minimally competent in using the tool. The driver of a car in not expected to perform a mechanical examination of the car whenever they use it, but are required to take some basic safety precautions, such as looking where they are going, following the rules of the road and not being drunk. I would expect an actor to take all those in much the same way as anyone who drives for their job would be expected to.

When using a gun, anywhere really but particularly in a professional environment, I would expect some basic rules. Knowing for sure if the gun is loaded or not is one such rule, "Never ever let a gun pointed be at anyone" is another, though that could have to bent on occasions but not this one.
 
The driver of a car in not expected to perform a mechanical examination of the car whenever they use it, but are required to take some basic safety precautions, such as looking where they are going, following the rules of the road and not being drunk. I would expect an actor to take all those in much the same way as anyone who drives for their job would be expected to.

So you agree that the actor is not responsible for the prop or whether the prop is safe to use? But may be culpable in how they use it? Okay. That was my original argument. :)
 
After a lifetime of being handed prop guns and firing them, should an actor check after every reload for live bullets?
The story is "In an affidavit, the Sheriff's Office said neither Halls nor Baldwin knew the gun was loaded" (wiki). He should have known that, regardless of if it was loaded with real or blank cartridges. It was a revolver, it takes a second. You should not point a gun with blanks at someone, people can get hurt by them.
So you agree that the actor is not responsible for the prop or whether the prop is safe to use? But may be culpable in how they use it? Okay. That was my original argument. :)
I guess you could say that, but knowing if there are bullets in a gun is part of use in the way checking the mechanics of a car is not.
 
He pointed the gun at the camera?


Pointing a gun filled with blanks at someone was his job that day.

This is, if they were filming a 1st-person-view of a person getting shot at.

Were these blanks?
Or just special effects?

 
Top Bottom