Look, I'm familiar with guns but certainly no expert but the prosecutor rebuilt the gun after the FBI broke it and then asked experts to determine if it could've gone off or not? Maybe the...
Prosecutors then had the replica gun forensically tested and had some parts of the weapon replaced after it was broken during the FBI's testing.
Look, I'm familiar with guns but certainly no expert but the prosecutor rebuilt the gun after the FBI broke it and then asked experts to determine if it could've gone off or not? Maybe the timeline is just muddy but once the prosecution put in parts that weren't part of the gun at the time of the shooting - doesn't that fuck up the question of "could this exact gun have gone off accidentally?"
I'm not shilling for Baldwin though
The actor said at the time that he drew back the hammer on the pistol, but did not pull the trigger.
Sounds like unless he's got the footage of the actual shooting it's going to be an uphill battle got him.
My thoughts exactly. If they replaced parts, it's no longer the same gun... What a bizarre case.
Maybe the timeline is just muddy but once the prosecution put in parts that weren't part of the gun at the time of the shooting - doesn't that fuck up the question of "could this exact gun have gone off accidentally?"
My thoughts exactly. If they replaced parts, it's no longer the same gun... What a bizarre case.
I think the FBI testing that broke the gun was what proved it could not be fired without pulling the trigger. Some internal mechanisms would have to be broken in order for the gun to have fired...
I think the FBI testing that broke the gun was what proved it could not be fired without pulling the trigger. Some internal mechanisms would have to be broken in order for the gun to have fired just by dropping the hammer. It makes sense that a thorough test would show that the gun won't fire just by dropping the hammer in its condition at the time of the incident, but if you force it so that now it will fire just by dropping the hammer the gun becomes damaged, so then you can repair the gun back to that original state and do the demonstration again.
And yeah, there's no way that gun went off without pulling the trigger. I'm not sure that by itself is enough for a conviction in this case, though. I think the bigger issue is the reports of extremely unsafe stuff being common on set, such as mixing of live ammunition and prop ammunition.
I would be curious what the testing produced. Did they test it once, five times or more before they damaged it? Before the breakage... what did they conclude (if anything at all)? (edit, 1.5 hrs...
Prosecutors then had the replica gun forensically tested and had some parts of the weapon replaced after it was broken during the FBI's testing.
I would be curious what the testing produced. Did they test it once, five times or more before they damaged it? Before the breakage... what did they conclude (if anything at all)?
(edit, 1.5 hrs later: this begs the question... was the gun so flimsy or in such bad shape that breakage was imminent? Should the gun have even been used on the set?)
Experts in ballistics and forensics based in Arizona and New Mexico concluded there was no way for the gun to have been fired without the trigger being pulled.
The framing of this bothers me. Are they saying some experts or all experts. Anecdotally, I've rarely read of cases where every expert agrees. The defense/prosecutor always seems to turn up a contrary opinion.
A tragedy. Lots of information early on about how the gun itself was mishandled. In the end, it was Baldwin (producer and star: the man in charge) who took the gun, cocked it and pointed it.
He literally killed another human being (Halyna Hutchins) so I am happy that they are considering recharging him. A trial would put to rest, once and for all, his culpability or innocence.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but my understanding of the situation is, Baldwin was given a gun and told it was safe. Then he went out and acted with it, as though it was safe. It wasn't safe....
Maybe I'm missing something here, but my understanding of the situation is, Baldwin was given a gun and told it was safe. Then he went out and acted with it, as though it was safe. It wasn't safe. So how is he culpable?
Seems like a good analogy would be: Hertz rents you a car. You drive it like a normal car. But actually the brakes don't work, and you get into an accident and kill someone. Hertz is at fault here, not you, right?
It's very muddied. I am NOT a reliable source and my memory on this is bad, and I have NOT done enough to vet this, so take all of this with a HUGE grain of salt. Standards on the set were...
It's very muddied. I am NOT a reliable source and my memory on this is bad, and I have NOT done enough to vet this, so take all of this with a HUGE grain of salt.
Standards on the set were HORRENDOUS. The kind of shit they were doing is just...unfathomably out of line. Like setting up high power lines in a pool sort of "this is fucking stupid". Many people walked off the set citing it was a dangerous environment, and I believe they were using non union workers because of this.
Baldwin has some financial involvement with the set/production company. I forget the details but he's not just the big name actor, but heavily involved in how things ran.
I'm least sure about this, but I've heard some rough version of SAG requires any user of the gun to check it's safe, even if the on set people have said "it's safe", you're still supposed to have some knowledge of how to confirm that and can be held liable if you don't.
3 was next to impossible because of 1. Rather than using proper blanks, they had drilled tiny holes in LIVE ammunition and poured out the gun powder, so supposedly you "checked" the bullets by shaking them and listening.
So it's a fucking mess. If they're going after Baldwin on the "you were responsible because of negligence on the set and you encouraged/helped that and were negligent in your own safety duties" i get it.
That said, it's also VERY easy to believe this is some prosecutor seeing their name in headlines and trying to overcharge. Will depend a lot on what he's charged with (if he is) and what the details are.
Yeah that seems weird to me as well. Safe replica guns on a movie set is supposed to be able to pull the trigger without killing anyone. If he is responsible for anything, I would guess it should...
Yeah that seems weird to me as well. Safe replica guns on a movie set is supposed to be able to pull the trigger without killing anyone. If he is responsible for anything, I would guess it should be as his role as producer where you are at least partly responsible for the overall working conditions of the production.
I agree. In addition, as I understand it the point of the criminal justice system is to act as a deterrent, both for the convicted and for future potential criminals. Some might say it's also to...
I agree. In addition, as I understand it the point of the criminal justice system is to act as a deterrent, both for the convicted and for future potential criminals. Some might say it's also to get dangerous people off the streets.
I don't see how either of these things could be accomplished here. You can't deter someone from making a mistake as the result of someone else's negligence. And unless they have some sort of terminal bad luck, they're not dangerous to society.
Maybe if the conditions that resulted in live ammo being on set were clearly his fault, there would be a reasonable charge there, but that doesn't seem to be what they're alleging.
The film's armourer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, faces two counts of involuntary manslaughter.
I don't know that I would ever read the sentence you highlighted and think it suggests that it means all experts. I think it pretty clearly means the experts who were consulted on this.
The framing of this bothers me. Are they saying some experts or all experts.
I don't know that I would ever read the sentence you highlighted and think it suggests that it means all experts. I think it pretty clearly means the experts who were consulted on this.
Ok, sure. I can see this point of view. The cynical side of me thinks that they might have consulted just one or two experts and generalized it to insinuate a greater number. It gives the...
I think it pretty clearly means the experts who were consulted on this.
Ok, sure. I can see this point of view. The cynical side of me thinks that they might have consulted just one or two experts and generalized it to insinuate a greater number. It gives the impression that lots of legwork was done and/or that they were given greater resources (or time) to cover this particular story.
It costs them nothing to tell us how many people they (or someone else) actually consulted. If I was writing to a critical audience, I would be upfront about the number of experts and their qualifications. I would do so because a person was killed.
This article talks more specifically about who the analysis came from: https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-rust-set-shooting-halyna-hutchins-f337b3bdc267d30fef67bb7946d738e2
Special prosecutors initially dismissed an involuntary manslaughter charge against Baldwin in April, saying they were informed the gun might have been modified before the shooting and malfunctioned. They later pivoted and began weighing whether to refile a charge against Baldwin after receiving a new analysis of the gun.
The recent gun analysis from experts in ballistics and forensic testing based in Arizona and New Mexico relied on replacement parts to reassemble the gun fired by Baldwin — after parts of the pistol were broken during earlier testing by the FBI. The report examined the gun and markings it left on a spent cartridge to conclude that the trigger had to have been pulled or depressed.
The analysis led by Lucien Haag of Forensic Science Services in Arizona stated that although Baldwin repeatedly denies pulling the trigger, “given the tests, findings and observations reported here, the trigger had to be pulled or depressed sufficiently to release the fully cocked or retracted hammer of the evidence revolver.”
A genuine thanks for this:-) What free time I have for following up on specific news is being overwhelmed by other current news... I was basically reacting only to the BBC article which seemed so...
A genuine thanks for this:-) What free time I have for following up on specific news is being overwhelmed by other current news...
I was basically reacting only to the BBC article which seemed so light on important details. This provides a great deal of really useful information. It gives me hope that there might actually be a real case here.
The latter. He cannot go to trial twice for the same crime. However, he never went to trial, so there is no impediment to charging him again due to additional facts.
The latter. He cannot go to trial twice for the same crime. However, he never went to trial, so there is no impediment to charging him again due to additional facts.
Can't someone be tried again if new evidence comes to light? Like if a guy murders someone, and they have a trial and he is found not guilty, but then after the trial some video footage is found...
Can't someone be tried again if new evidence comes to light?
Like if a guy murders someone, and they have a trial and he is found not guilty, but then after the trial some video footage is found that clearly shows him commiting the murder they can then have a retrial?
No. The reason is that there's an element of randomness to all trials - not to mention the emotional and monetary burden. If you could retry someone, then a determined prosecution could get almost...
No. The reason is that there's an element of randomness to all trials - not to mention the emotional and monetary burden. If you could retry someone, then a determined prosecution could get almost anyone in jail eventually.
Specifically, this is called double jeopardy in the US.
In theory that is the rule. In practice, prosecutors can charge someone with new crimes by finding a broader statute such as wire fraud. Also, courts have even allowed someone to be charged...
In theory that is the rule.
In practice, prosecutors can charge someone with new crimes by finding a broader statute such as wire fraud.
Also, courts have even allowed someone to be charged federally when they are found innocent on state charges.
Not usually. But if the person testified or made demonstrably false statements under oath, they can be charged with new crimes. Something like saying, “I didn’t kill him!” but then they find video...
Not usually.
But if the person testified or made demonstrably false statements under oath, they can be charged with new crimes.
Something like saying, “I didn’t kill him!” but then they find video evidence showing them doing it, or even if they say “I wasn’t at that house!” but proof emerges that they were.
Not sure on the exact legal bound of this. But most of the time the defendant does not go under oath to testify. Which means you can literally win your innocence in court and then attest to your...
Not sure on the exact legal bound of this. But most of the time the defendant does not go under oath to testify.
Which means you can literally win your innocence in court and then attest to your guilt publicly. Not a good idea as that makes it easy to find and prove adjacent crimes. Officially not guilty for murder? Well now you're getting charged with conspiracy to commit murder, illegally buying a gun, etc. etc.
You’re right that you can’t be charged with conspiracy or anything like that, but my point is that if a defendant does testify in court and then it’s proved they lied, that is a new crime that can...
You’re right that you can’t be charged with conspiracy or anything like that, but my point is that if a defendant does testify in court and then it’s proved they lied, that is a new crime that can be charged separately.
Look, I'm familiar with guns but certainly no expert but the prosecutor rebuilt the gun after the FBI broke it and then asked experts to determine if it could've gone off or not? Maybe the timeline is just muddy but once the prosecution put in parts that weren't part of the gun at the time of the shooting - doesn't that fuck up the question of "could this exact gun have gone off accidentally?"
I'm not shilling for Baldwin though
Sounds like unless he's got the footage of the actual shooting it's going to be an uphill battle got him.
My thoughts exactly. If they replaced parts, it's no longer the same gun... What a bizarre case.
I think the FBI testing that broke the gun was what proved it could not be fired without pulling the trigger. Some internal mechanisms would have to be broken in order for the gun to have fired just by dropping the hammer. It makes sense that a thorough test would show that the gun won't fire just by dropping the hammer in its condition at the time of the incident, but if you force it so that now it will fire just by dropping the hammer the gun becomes damaged, so then you can repair the gun back to that original state and do the demonstration again.
And yeah, there's no way that gun went off without pulling the trigger. I'm not sure that by itself is enough for a conviction in this case, though. I think the bigger issue is the reports of extremely unsafe stuff being common on set, such as mixing of live ammunition and prop ammunition.
I would be curious what the testing produced. Did they test it once, five times or more before they damaged it? Before the breakage... what did they conclude (if anything at all)?
(edit, 1.5 hrs later: this begs the question... was the gun so flimsy or in such bad shape that breakage was imminent? Should the gun have even been used on the set?)
The framing of this bothers me. Are they saying some experts or all experts. Anecdotally, I've rarely read of cases where every expert agrees. The defense/prosecutor always seems to turn up a contrary opinion.
A tragedy. Lots of information early on about how the gun itself was mishandled. In the end, it was Baldwin (producer and star: the man in charge) who took the gun, cocked it and pointed it.
He literally killed another human being (Halyna Hutchins) so I am happy that they are considering recharging him. A trial would put to rest, once and for all, his culpability or innocence.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but my understanding of the situation is, Baldwin was given a gun and told it was safe. Then he went out and acted with it, as though it was safe. It wasn't safe. So how is he culpable?
Seems like a good analogy would be: Hertz rents you a car. You drive it like a normal car. But actually the brakes don't work, and you get into an accident and kill someone. Hertz is at fault here, not you, right?
It's very muddied. I am NOT a reliable source and my memory on this is bad, and I have NOT done enough to vet this, so take all of this with a HUGE grain of salt.
Standards on the set were HORRENDOUS. The kind of shit they were doing is just...unfathomably out of line. Like setting up high power lines in a pool sort of "this is fucking stupid". Many people walked off the set citing it was a dangerous environment, and I believe they were using non union workers because of this.
Baldwin has some financial involvement with the set/production company. I forget the details but he's not just the big name actor, but heavily involved in how things ran.
I'm least sure about this, but I've heard some rough version of SAG requires any user of the gun to check it's safe, even if the on set people have said "it's safe", you're still supposed to have some knowledge of how to confirm that and can be held liable if you don't.
3 was next to impossible because of 1. Rather than using proper blanks, they had drilled tiny holes in LIVE ammunition and poured out the gun powder, so supposedly you "checked" the bullets by shaking them and listening.
So it's a fucking mess. If they're going after Baldwin on the "you were responsible because of negligence on the set and you encouraged/helped that and were negligent in your own safety duties" i get it.
That said, it's also VERY easy to believe this is some prosecutor seeing their name in headlines and trying to overcharge. Will depend a lot on what he's charged with (if he is) and what the details are.
Yeah that seems weird to me as well. Safe replica guns on a movie set is supposed to be able to pull the trigger without killing anyone. If he is responsible for anything, I would guess it should be as his role as producer where you are at least partly responsible for the overall working conditions of the production.
I agree. In addition, as I understand it the point of the criminal justice system is to act as a deterrent, both for the convicted and for future potential criminals. Some might say it's also to get dangerous people off the streets.
I don't see how either of these things could be accomplished here. You can't deter someone from making a mistake as the result of someone else's negligence. And unless they have some sort of terminal bad luck, they're not dangerous to society.
Maybe if the conditions that resulted in live ammo being on set were clearly his fault, there would be a reasonable charge there, but that doesn't seem to be what they're alleging.
That makes more sense.
I wonder what I'm missing too.
I don't know that I would ever read the sentence you highlighted and think it suggests that it means all experts. I think it pretty clearly means the experts who were consulted on this.
Ok, sure. I can see this point of view. The cynical side of me thinks that they might have consulted just one or two experts and generalized it to insinuate a greater number. It gives the impression that lots of legwork was done and/or that they were given greater resources (or time) to cover this particular story.
It costs them nothing to tell us how many people they (or someone else) actually consulted. If I was writing to a critical audience, I would be upfront about the number of experts and their qualifications. I would do so because a person was killed.
This article talks more specifically about who the analysis came from: https://apnews.com/article/alec-baldwin-rust-set-shooting-halyna-hutchins-f337b3bdc267d30fef67bb7946d738e2
A genuine thanks for this:-) What free time I have for following up on specific news is being overwhelmed by other current news...
I was basically reacting only to the BBC article which seemed so light on important details. This provides a great deal of really useful information. It gives me hope that there might actually be a real case here.
Can they not charge someone with the same thing twice, or because it never went to trial, they can start the process again?
The latter. He cannot go to trial twice for the same crime. However, he never went to trial, so there is no impediment to charging him again due to additional facts.
Can't someone be tried again if new evidence comes to light?
Like if a guy murders someone, and they have a trial and he is found not guilty, but then after the trial some video footage is found that clearly shows him commiting the murder they can then have a retrial?
No. The reason is that there's an element of randomness to all trials - not to mention the emotional and monetary burden. If you could retry someone, then a determined prosecution could get almost anyone in jail eventually.
Specifically, this is called double jeopardy in the US.
In theory that is the rule.
In practice, prosecutors can charge someone with new crimes by finding a broader statute such as wire fraud.
Also, courts have even allowed someone to be charged federally when they are found innocent on state charges.
I believe that cannot happen in the US.
Not usually.
But if the person testified or made demonstrably false statements under oath, they can be charged with new crimes.
Something like saying, “I didn’t kill him!” but then they find video evidence showing them doing it, or even if they say “I wasn’t at that house!” but proof emerges that they were.
Not sure on the exact legal bound of this. But most of the time the defendant does not go under oath to testify.
Which means you can literally win your innocence in court and then attest to your guilt publicly. Not a good idea as that makes it easy to find and prove adjacent crimes. Officially not guilty for murder? Well now you're getting charged with conspiracy to commit murder, illegally buying a gun, etc. etc.
You’re right that you can’t be charged with conspiracy or anything like that, but my point is that if a defendant does testify in court and then it’s proved they lied, that is a new crime that can be charged separately.