Rust Film Shooting - Family Attorney for deceased: Animated Video

[thi9elsp]

Go down in the article and there is an animated video that the attorney's for Halyna Hutchins' family has created to show what happened on set. Dang. I don't know how a defense attorney for the film, production, Baldwin, etc. would be able to defeat it.

https://www.insider.com/halyna-hutchins-animation-rust-shooting-alec-baldwin-lawsuit-2022-2

The end of the video lists 15 different things that the attorneys are alleging were done wrong.

 

[Newboomer]

Go down in the article and there is an animated video that the attorney's for Halyna Hutchins' family has created to show what happened on set. Dang. I don't know how a defense attorney for the film, production, Baldwin, etc. would be able to defeat it.

https://www.insider.com/halyna-hutchins-animation-rust-shooting-alec-baldwin-lawsuit-2022-2

The end of the video lists 15 different things that the attorneys are alleging were done wrong.

Let me play devil's advocate for a bit. Was Baldwin set up?

A single action revolver rotates the cylinder upon cocking to bring a round in line with the bore. Whoever loaded that gun had to be quite familiar with single actions to know which cylinder(s) to put the live round(s) in and which way the cylinder rotated upon cocking. How many live rounds were in the gun? If there were more than one they would still have to be strategically placed to rotate into battery.

Baldwin didn't check the gun, just holstered it. He had no idea if there were live rounds or where they were loaded. Upon drawing and cocking he loaded a live round, however unintentionally. A live round discharged upon pulling the trigger.

Could this be the other side of the story? Could there be a plot to hang him? Guess we'll have to wait for it to wend it's way through the courts.

 

[CBH Australia]

I knew little of Baldwin before the incident.
He didn't load it but he did pull the trigger so there is some level of responsibility.

If he was set up was the intention to kill someone or just have a massive cock up on set to scare people?

Does it all come down to stupidity and as mix up of bullets/blanks due to human error, poor practice or negligence.? Who is responsible for the loaded round ?

The victim was the director not an actor so the gun should never have been pointed at her.

 

[AB2506]

If there is any justice, Baldwin would be doing time upon conviction of negligent homicide. As a producer, he and or his insurance company will be forking out millions in the wrongful death suit.

 

[akrifleman]

The gun was used by crew for "plinking" before the shoot. I hate that it was a 24 yr old armorer, but those guns were not under control. As much as I hate the guy, loaded weapon should never have been in the hands of an actor, or the crew. On set, the armorers job is that of a safety officer. I want to know how an inexperienced person had that job.

 

[rookhawk]

Go down in the article and there is an animated video that the attorney's for Halyna Hutchins' family has created to show what happened on set. Dang. I don't know how a defense attorney for the film, production, Baldwin, etc. would be able to defeat it.

https://www.insider.com/halyna-hutchins-animation-rust-shooting-alec-baldwin-lawsuit-2022-2

The end of the video lists 15 different things that the attorneys are alleging were done wrong.

It's a pretty detailed video, but it whitewashes over the various guilty parties and focuses on the culpable parties with money. IMHO.

Two angles to the case. Criminal and Civil.

Criminal Liability - I believe the evidence will show that the armorer was guilty of some sort of manslaughter. She was poorly trained, negligent, and allowed prop guns (that were actual guns) to be used for "plinking" between takes. Someone died due to her negligence.

Civil Liability - Several entities here. Alec Baldwin the actor isn't liable. He was handed a gun that wasn't properly secured/safe. As an actor, he wasn't liable. The armorer is mostly to blame but she is piss poor and lives in a rented room of a trailer in Arizona and is twenty-nothing years old, hence they deflect blame from her because they don't want her to be more liable percentage-wise as its a judgment no one will collect a penny upon. Alec Baldwin the corporate entity that was both the producer and the investor created an unsafe working condition for the actors and crew (including Alec Baldwin the actor) and they will be found largely liable for presiding over unsafe conditions and failing to fund the minimum protections required by custom. What is the net worth of Alec Baldwin's production company and Alec Baldwin's financing arm? No clue, but that's the pockets that the plaintiffs aim to drain.

I'd be interested to know from the attorneys on this site whether I have the breakdown of roles and liabilities correct for the civil and the criminal angles of the case.

 

[TXhunter65]

Didn't realize he shot two people.

Seems odd given this isn't the first accidental discharge of a firearm or death of an actor/set worker that any actor involved in a movie with firearms would ever trust another human with making sure the gun is either unloaded or loaded with dummy rounds. Given the liability and what could possibly be at stake why would anyone take someone else’s word for it.

IMO if the gun's in your hand when it goes off it's on you. Don't care how many people are paid to ensure the safety of the weapon.

 

[rookhawk]

Didn't realize he shot two people.

Seems odd given this isn't the first accidental discharge of a firearm or death of an actor/set worker that any actor involved in a movie with firearms would ever trust another human with making sure the gun is either unloaded or loaded with dummy rounds. Given the liability and what could possibly be at stake why would anyone take someone else’s word for it.

IMO if the gun's in your hand when it goes off it's on you. Don't care how many people are paid to ensure the safety of the weapon.

Most prop guns are not "real" guns. They can still be deadly, Brandon Lee, Bruce Lee's son was killed by the chaff or wad from a prop gun during the filming of the Crow. Nonetheless, these idiots decided for authenticities sake to use legit Colt Single Action army revolvers rather than use prop guns. The imbeciles then decided to use them for live target practice on the set.

 

[Areaonereal]

If I am ever handed a weapon I personally check to determine if it is loaded or not, but I have been around firearms for 65 years..these actors are novices in the most blatant forms of handling firearms and they want to tell us about gun control. Give me a break…..

 

[Areaonereal]

Who pointed the weapon…who pulled the trigger…so you have your car filled with gasoline and you drive off and kill a family with a head on…you blaming the gas attendant.

 

[rookhawk]

Who pointed the weapon…who pulled the trigger…so you have your car filled with gasoline and you drive off and kill a family with a head on…you blaming the gas attendant.

Bad examples and you're associating your knowledge of proper gun handling and applying it to a known-idiot actor. An actor is supposed to know the basics (the training session didn't occur) but they are supposed to be supervised by an expert armorer at all times.

A better analogy is you handing a child a loaded gun as a range officer and negligently supervising them. The adult in the room is you. The adult in the room on the Rust set was A.) not in the room, and B.) was 24 years old with no professional expertise.

Worse yet for the idiot armorer, she went onto a podcast as stupid 24 year olds are prone to do and she gushes on and on about what a big deal the movie is for her career, how nervous she is about the responsibility of being an armorer, and effectively how under qualified she is to be in this role. That will come back to bite her hard.

 

[Doug3006]

Let me play devil's advocate for a bit. Was Baldwin set up?

A single action revolver rotates the cylinder upon cocking to bring a round in line with the bore. Whoever loaded that gun had to be quite familiar with single actions to know which cylinder(s) to put the live round(s) in and which way the cylinder rotated upon cocking. How many live rounds were in the gun? If there were more than one they would still have to be strategically placed to rotate into battery.

Baldwin didn't check the gun, just holstered it. He had no idea if there were live rounds or where they were loaded. Upon drawing and cocking he loaded a live round, however unintentionally. A live round discharged upon pulling the trigger.

Could this be the other side of the story? Could there be a plot to hang him? Guess we'll have to wait for it to wend it's way through the courts.

Anything is possible. He should be charged, indicted and get his day in court. If there’s evidence supporting a set-up, his attorneys will naturally present that evidence. Though I doubt he will stand trial in a criminal case.

I tend to believe that in any tragic event, the likeliest scenario is usually what happened.

In this case, I think Baldwin pointed a loaded gun at the videographer, pulled the trigger, striking and killing her. The gun was loaded with live cartridges by mistake, which is the fault of the producer (Baldwin) and the armorer for not having and enforcing set safety protocol. The ultimate responsibility lies with Baldwin for not ensuring the gun was loaded with blanks rather than live cartridges.

I doubt he’ll ever stand trial in a criminal case. He‘ll almost certainly face an enormous civil penalty. He bears most of the responsibility for her death.

 

[Nickcusato]

It is a tragedy and there is negligence on the part of many. Baldwin, among others should be held accountable. That video animation is huge. If allowed it will sway a fence sitter into a higher punitive amount for sure. The defense tried to get the whole thing dismissed, then attempted to remove the producers from the punitive damages possibility but the judge refused. The defense will motion to limit the demonstrative evidence and if argued properly, possibly get a judge to not allow it. The video animation is not substantive evidence and is only a point of view to a possible chain of events that produced that outcome. That being said, someone is dead and negligence was definitely part of her being killed. Very sad.

 

[Medicine]

I'd be interested to know from the attorneys on this site whether I have the breakdown of roles and liabilities correct for the civil and the criminal angles of the case.

Although I generally come here to escape work, I suppose I'm feeling frisky tonight. In my state (not New Mexico), allowing a case of manslaughter against the amorer to go to the jury would be reversible error by the trial judge. Here, on an indictment of manslaughter, the Defendant's oral motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the end of the state's case would be due to be granted. On the other hand, on a case against the shooter, I would expect the Defendant's motion for Judgment of Acquital to be denied. At this point, the Defendant (shooter) would put on his case in chief - although he certainly doesn't have to as he has no burden. At the conclusion of the Defendant's case and after all rebuttal testimony and closing arguments, I would expect a jury verdict of guilty to manslaughter.
In my state, with manslaughter being a Class B felony, the Defendant would be looking at a sentence of 2 to 20 years. Of course, sentences can be suspended, split, reverse split, or straight. The Defendant would also have 42 days to appeal his conviction. Also, in our country, there is a remarkable thing called jury nullification. What this means is that the jury can vote not guilty even if they believe the state has met its burden. In the event of this last scenario, the state has no right to appeal.

 

[shootist~]

Baldwin has been in numerous movies with guns as part of the action. I would think he's had considerable firearms related safety training. Industry standards should have been followed.

 

[Frederik]

Whatever the outcome this was something that could have been prevented with ease.

 

[rookhawk]

Although I generally come here to escape work, I suppose I'm feeling frisky tonight. In my state (not New Mexico), allowing a case of manslaughter against the amorer to go to the jury would be reversible error by the trial judge. Here, on an indictment of manslaughter, the Defendant's oral motion for Judgment of Acquittal at the end of the state's case would be due to be granted. On the other hand, on a case against the shooter, I would expect the Defendant's motion for Judgment of Acquital to be denied. At this point, the Defendant (shooter) would put on his case in chief - although he certainly doesn't have to as he has no burden. At the conclusion of the Defendant's case and after all rebuttal testimony and closing arguments, I would expect a jury verdict of guilty to manslaughter.
In my state, with manslaughter being a Class B felony, the Defendant would be looking at a sentence of 2 to 20 years. Of course, sentences can be suspended, split, reverse split, or straight. The Defendant would also have 42 days to appeal his conviction. Also, in our country, there is a remarkable thing called jury nullification. What this means is that the jury can vote not guilty even if they believe the state has met its burden. In the event of this last scenario, the state has no right to appeal.

Thanks for commenting. Why would the armorer have no criminal liability?

Wouldn’t the parallel example be that I’m your mechanic and I start your brake job, but I decide to save money by not putting brake fluid in the car. You drive off and kill someone?

The armorer is a trained professional that is ultimately accountable for the safety of the prop guns. Wouldn’t the actor (Baldwin) that isn’t a trained armorer be reliant that the armorer did her job in the same way the analogy above is showing the driver is reliant on the brake repairman? One is an expert, the other is not?

 

[Medicine]

Thanks for commenting. Why would the armorer have no criminal liability?

I never said she wouldn't have criminal liability - I said in my state a manslaughter conviction shouldn't make it to the jury. There is also the misdemeanor charge of Criminally Negligent Homicide.
But if your question is, "Why wouldn't the armorer be convicted of Manslaughter?," then my answer would be because I do not believe the state could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the armorer recklessly caused the death of the deceased.

 

[Medicine]

Wouldn’t the parallel example be that I’m your mechanic and I start your brake job, but I decide to save money by not putting brake fluid in the car. You drive off and kill someone?

There are no parallel examples of criminal law in this country unrelated to the prior bad acts of the Defendant. Even then, the appropriate motions (404b) have the be filed by the state and ruled upon by the trial judge outside of the presence of the jury before said acts can be introduced. Further, only then may they be introduced by the state if they are so similar to the present case that they tend to show a common scheme, plan, design.
There is obviously precedent; however. What this means is that if someone else had done the exact same thing as the armorer and if they were convicted of Manslaughter and if that conviction had been appealed and affirmed by the state's Court of Criminal Appeals and Supreme Court, then a conviction of Manslaughter against the armorer would be proper.

 

[Zambezi]

Why can't they convict him just because he's an asshole... I mean the prosecution can produce evidence that he is an asshole (past and present). Evidence that most actors are out of touch assholes and hollywood has a history of killing off actors through negligence.