One of multiple live bullets found on the set of “Rust” by investigators of the 2021 fatal shooting was discovered in the bandolier of actor Jensen Ackles, according to crime scene technician Marissa Poppell.
Poppell disclosed the detail while on the stand during the second day of testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial of actor Alec Baldwin, nearly three years after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the New Mexico set of the Western film.
Asked about the live rounds of ammunition that were discovered on set, Poppell said investigators found some on a prop cart, in a box of ammo and also in two prop gun holsters — the one worn by Alec Baldwin and another worn by co-star Ackles.
This case has been going on for a while. Offhand, I can think of at least three toddlers who killed themselves or someone else using a gun that the owner knew was loaded.
None of those adults has been arrested. But the guy who was told his gun had blanks is responsible?
I think it’s bc he is also a producer. The case hinges on him being responsible for safety of the crew and being repeatedly negligent.
This one is his negligence trial, in the trial about him as a producer it came out that he was also messing around with the gun on set and had fired blanks at the crew between takes among other unsafe behaviors.
Jesus christ, firing blanks is still dangerous. If there is an obstruction in the barrel it can still act like a projectile.
One of ten producers. And the one who was mostly in charge fundraising.
The people who were actually in charge of safety and the guns told Baldwin it was safe.
This is omitting the detail that members of the crew had brought up safety concerns about the firearms handlers and production went on.
They had an inexperienced armorer on set raising all sorts of red flags, production was made aware, show went on.
Baldwin is on set when many producers probably weren’t. He’s got his fair shame of blame in this, and the armorer as well.
Exactly this. People forgot, or dont know, that safety concerns were raised before the accident.
Also, look at the first minute of a major Hollywood movie; there are often a dozen companies involved. I remember one wrestling show that seemed to have more producers than wrestlers involved.
How is being a producer more of a vital role than being a parent?
you sign papers saying your responsible for things as a producer. to be a parent you just have sex.
Don’t get me started how upside down it is all the hoops you have to go through for adoption vs just popping one out on your own….
So it’s not exactly about the shooting itself but creating the negligent conditions that allowed it to happen. From what I understand, as a producer he had his crew cut as many safety corners as possible to reduce costs. His direction to cut corners led to oversights in safety, which led to the prop masters making safety mistakes and accidentslly loading a live round into a firearm designated as a prop, which led to a person dying because of an on set accident. If he didn’t direct his crew to cut corners, the chances of somebody dying is dramatically reduced and makes this line of work incredibly safe despite the potentially dangerous implements used.
So the case is about “did the executive decisions Baldwin make to cut corners on safety contribute to the death of someone on set?”
Again, I point out that parents of children who killed/died aren’t being held to the same level of responsibility.
They should be. Is that your point? That they should be, because I think any sane person would agree.
If you’re arguing that the responsible parties in this incident shouldn’t be prosecuted because another person is getting away with manslaughter… well that’s a bit silly isn’t it?
I can’t tell what your intentions are, because nuance is hard via text
My point is that this is a selective prosecution. Either treat Baldwin like the parents, or treat the parents like Baldwin. Laws should be applied fairly.
Yeah the legal system is not a just system.
That being said, usually the prosecutorial imbalance is against the weak and powerless. In this case, a man with more power, money, and influence than most of us will ever see in a lifetime is being held responsible for cutting corners. Can you imagine if Boeing execs were actually held accountable? Or Chase/BoA/Wells Fargo et. al.? It rarely happens.
Is it unjust that the protection is selective? Yes. In the balance, I’d rather the scales be weighted against the powerful, rather than how it normally is.
Comparing Baldwin to Boeing is like comparing your local deli to McDonalds.
He’s got a net worth of $70 million. He’s been a successful actor for decades, but he’s nowhere near being a billionaire.
You seem weirdly invested in Alec Baldwin’s well-being. I don’t think there’s anything productive left to be said about this, so I’ll wish you peace, and long life
You seem weirdly blind to how bad this kind of selective prosecution is.
Bald wins prosecutor is not allowed to do his job, because some other prosecutor didn’t?
If a cop lets everyone break the speed limit, and then targets the one driver with a ACAB bumper sticker, now the cop is doing his job?
Yes they should be, now leave the non sequitur discussion derailing nonsense at the door and stay on topic. Parents being irresponsible dumbasses has nothing to do with a film exec directing his crew to cut safety corners to save a quick buck.
2 of 2
The manslaughter trial against Alec Baldwin over the fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has been dismissed. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer threw out the case over how police and prosecutors treated a handful of bullets, which they failed to turn over to the defence.
“The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide discovery to the defendant,” Judge Sommer said. “Dismissal with prejudice is warranted.” The dismissal came as a surprise as gasps were said to be heard in the courtroom and Baldwin was congratulated by his family and supporter
Sounds like you agree with my point that this is a selective prosecution and that plenty of folks who did worse skated.
Fuck off, stop arguing in bad faith, it’s patently clear to everyone in this thread you’re arguing in bad faith.
Did you read anything I commented or are you going to strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard arguing a nonsequitur nobody was arguing and everyone already broadly agrees with?
Agreeing that parents should be prosecuted for improperly storing firearms around children, which sidenote a simple fucking google search shows that parents often are prosecuted for improperly storing firearms but they’re not famous actor and producer Alec Baldwin so it doesn’t make national news, is not agreeing to the idea of not prosecute Alec Baldwin for directing his crew to cut corners in safety protocols.
Apparently you didn’t hear the latest news.
A different judge has dismissed the case. Permanently.
They looked at the prosecutor and saw that they’d acted in bad faith, trying to railroad Baldwin.
https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/fox-news-entertainment-newsletter-alec-baldwins-rollercoaster-rust-shooting-trial-ends-dismissal
Not really relevant for this topic though
Many other people seem to find it relevant.
Please explain why the selective nature of the prosecution isn’t relevant.
It sounds like you are saying that unless we prosecute EVERY OTHER case on this issue, we should just forget about it?
It sounds like you are agreeing with me that this is a case of selective prosecution.
We might have actually saved some kids’ lives if we’d thrown a few negligent parents in jail.
No. Different people are responsible for bringing those other cases to trial. I agree that those other cases should be tried but that’s a terrible argument for not prosecuting this one.
It was somewhat the same with smoking. We were able to ban smoking from workplaces decades ago by virtue of worker protections and the known health impact. However even today your kid’s lungs have no such protection
If a worker dies in a factory line while following instructions, we would all agree that owners of the factory should be held responsible. I don’t see why that concept is so difficult to grasp here and so many people are trying to defend Alec Balwdin. The filming set is a workplace and someone died through no fault of their own, but rather by the conditions set by the owners of this production. There were complaints on set about the safety conditions before this incident happened and it seems that nothing was done to mitigate it. Everyone is trying to throw the armorer under the bus, but she was hired and vetted by management, and even after complaints nothing was changed.
First, that’s not the situation. The boss isn’t responsible if a second worker creates a dangerous situation without the owner’s knowledge or consent.
Be that as it may, I’m not defending Baldwin; I’m pointing out that a lot of people with much more personal responsibility don’t get in trouble when toddlers kill.
As I mentioned in my last comment, concerns were raised about safety on set before Baldwin shot someone. So knowledge was there.
And yes nobody disagrees, a toddler shooting themselves in the face from a parent’s unsecured gun should definitely be punishable
Plus goofing around with a gun is not ok, even if you think there are no live rounds
I thought he was working on a scene and not “goofing around” when the incident occurred. Was he actually just playing with the “prop” gun?
I had previously interpreted descriptions like this as goofing around - I used to do stuff like that with cap guns as a kid - but yeah, you’re probably right
I think it’s relevant whether he observed unsafe practices on set. It sounds like the whole thing was kind of a shit show. Plus the investigation concluded that the gun could not have fired without him pulling the trigger. Pointing a gun at someone and firing when you have reason to believe that proper safety precautions haven’t been followed is exactly the sort of thing that might end up with an involuntary manslaughter charge. I dunno if he gets convicted but I don’t think the charges are crazy.
If you want logic from American gun culture, you better get comfortable waiting.
Amen
Baldwin made fun of Trump a bunch of times on SNL. It had already been ruled involuntary manslaughter, but maga court had a bone to pick.
Additionally - a *half truth from chat frickin GPT:
"In a tense political climate, Alec Baldwin’s satirical portrayal of President Donald Trump on “Saturday Night Live” had garnered significant attention and polarized opinions. His impersonations were both celebrated and criticized, drawing ire from Trump supporters who saw his performances as disrespectful and damaging.
On the set of the film “Rust,” an unfortunate and tragic accident occurred, leading to the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins. As investigations began, initial findings suggested that the incident was a result of a series of safety lapses and negligence on the part of the production team, including Baldwin, who was both an actor and a producer on the film.
Enter District Attorney Thomas Harlan, a staunch supporter of President Trump, appointed during Trump’s tenure. Harlan had previously expressed disdain for Baldwin’s portrayals of Trump, believing them to be part of a broader media conspiracy against conservative values.
Seizing the opportunity presented by the “Rust” incident, Harlan decided to press charges against Baldwin with unusual fervor. He argued that Baldwin’s role as a producer made him directly responsible for the safety lapses on set, thus filing charges of involuntary manslaughter against him. Critics claimed that the intensity and speed of the charges were disproportionate compared to similar cases in the industry, suggesting political motivations behind Harlan’s actions.
Supporters of Baldwin and various legal analysts argued that the charges were a clear case of political retribution. They pointed out that other individuals with similar roles in previous on-set accidents had not faced such severe charges. Furthermore, they highlighted Harlan’s public statements and connections to pro-Trump groups as evidence of his bias.
The media frenzy intensified, with pundits on both sides debating whether Baldwin was being unfairly targeted due to his political satire. This scenario underscores the complexities of mixing legal actions with political motivations, ultimately raising questions about the impartiality of justice in a highly polarized environment."
Is this accurate? I’m not finding any info on a Thomas Harlan at all
Great catch. Yep Chat GPT made him up 🤷🏻 I’ll edit the original post.
The first time I was online was in the 90’s. I always heard the “don’t believe everything you read online” thing, but it honestly wasn’t ever a worry up until about two-three years ago.
By all means, arrest them all. Take what justice we can get