Judge pushes decision on Alec Baldwin’s indictment in fatal shooting | NewsNation Now
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- A New Mexico judge plans to rule next week on a grand jury indictment against Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust,” after hearing arguments Friday that the proceedings were unfair to the defendant.
#AlecBaldwin #Rust
"NewsNation Now" is a no fluff, no filler newscast hosted by Nichole Berlie and Connell McShane featuring up-to-the-minute news drawing from a network of journalists across the U.S. Weekdays starting at 1p/12C.
NewsNation is your source for fact-based, unbiased news for all America.
More from NewsNation: www.newsnationnow.com/
Get our app: trib.al/TBXgYpp
Find us on cable: trib.al/YDOpGyG
How to watch on TV or streaming: trib.al/Vu0Ikij
He was pushy and impatient and reckless where and when he pointed that gun and it went off in his hand. Hannah is not the only one responsible!
1:10 explains exactly how the gun fired. He technically didn't "pull" the trigger, his finger was just on it. Pulling the hammer back and releasing it rapidly with your finger still holding the trigger will fire the gun
News Nation has the most incompetent reporters. Alec Baldwin should be found guilty for being a producer who cut costs & ran an unsafe set to save money that resulted in a death. He continued filming after many people walked off the set that very same day to protest how unsafe it was. It’s reckless indifference.
I don’t think he should be found guilty for pulling the trigger. He should be found guilty for running an unsafe set that led to a death.
Even if News Nation disagrees with me, they should still have the journalistic competence to mention the cost cutting and unsafe set aspect, instead of ignoring it. They are truly incompetent.
If you don't believe he should be found guilty for pointing the gun and pulling the trigger then you just acquitted Baldwin. Baldwin didn't hire the staff nor did he run the set according to the OSHA report. The report said he was only in charge of scripts and actors. The set was run by Ryan Smith and Gabrielle Pickle hired the staff. You got checkmated by your own words!
If he is found guilty as a producer, that would have been a civil judgement. Because it was a passive responsibility, if we are talking about him as a producer, instead of being a trigger man.
The issue here is HIM, as a person, whether or not he exercises due care and circumspection, which result in Hutchin's death. You need to have a jury that raise beyond any reasonable doubt that he is negligent to a point reckless (Which is very important) that he is foreseeable that someone is going to die, and he still act the way he did leading to the death.
Which is very hard to prove because in a movie, you are supposed to point the weapon on someone, and you are supposed to pull the trigger, that's why armorer was hire instead of everyday joe show up with firearms they bought from a dealer. It would be a tough case to prove for the prosecution. Because they need to prove this is the case.
"He was holding the gun"? He FIRED the gun that killed her!
How much did alex "donate" to get out of that? I knew this would happen from day 1
Guilty guilty of manslaughter
If Hannah got 18 months, then Alec should get just as much if not more. Triggers do not pull themselves.
HE DIDNT LOAD IT SHE DID DUH
Hannah is already pushing against the conviction. She still doesn't believe she should pay for her negligence.
It seems like they both want to escape being responsible for that death. Did the bullet just magically load in the gun by itself and also magically discharged by itself?
@@puffyjoThey are equally responsible. Duh.
@@puffyjo According to NM case law, it doesn't matter who loaded the gun. Baldwin isn't the first person unintentionally shooting and killing someone. It happens about 500 times a year nationwide. The most uttered sentence after an unintentional shooting is: “I thought it was unloaded”. It never works in court.
Alec Baldwin needs to step up to the plate as a man & take responsibility for what happened & stop living in that "Hollywood Bubble Of Great Denial" !!
so, would a normal citizen be charged if they accidently shot someone with a gun they thought was unloaded?
Not when there is an expert paid to clear the guns before every shoot and she brought live ammo on to set as well .
@@bsting601 wrongo bongo…… when you are handed a real gun…. YOU are responsible for safety checking it and following the four basic rules of gun safety…. #1 Which is to assume and treat all guns as if they are loaded. You are obviously NOT a gun owner so why are you commenting on something that you are ignorant of? By the way in addition to having previously handled guns in many many movies over many many years, Baldwin is a long time gun owner himself and has no excuse for not knowing proper gun safety and NOT practicing proper gun safety. You can whine that it was an accident; However, it would never have become an accident if simple, proper, and long established gun safety rules had been used.
That would be a convenient cop out if that were true, but no law states you forfeit responsibility simply because you hired someone to check your gun. It's still a gun no matter how many qualified people check it and you still have to treat it as so.
@alanaldpal950 Yeah Na. You just don't like Alec for his brilliant Trump impersonation . It's clear he was not responsible . You're letting personal feelings get in the way mate . Why would I need a gun ? I live in a safe country 🙂
Probably not if the citizen could demonstrate a reasonable expectation the gun was safe,, after he was paying someone to insure that..and that person was just convicted of negligence..
As a gun owner myself, one thing the prosecutor forgot to mention is you're always supposed to check a gun to see if its loaded....first thing you do and you always treat a weapon as if it is loaded
The prosecutor didn't mention that because their expert Bryan Carpenter testified that actors aren't required to personally perform a safety check and that such checks add nothing to safety. She didn't accidentally forget to mention it. She can't rely on that!
It was manslaughter
Put him in jail!!
I know it , dismissed his caes , cold , that mess up , what money 💰 can buy !
Fancy yourself a psychic, do you?
the person thats pointing the gun is ACTING not a real situation DUH
The firearms experts today do not understand the 1800s era revolver. In the clip showing Baldwin drawing the gun, he had his finger on the trigger but it did not fire. The fire control is the hammer. Without exception, every western movie the actor has his finger on the trigger at all times. This is not a Glock pistol.
That's the issue on the case here, because you would expect Baldwin NOT to know that if it can be this confused even to an expert, the issue here is not how or what make the gun fire, but whether Baldwin can foresee it will fire (and whether or not he can foresee the gun is hot, instead of cold)
@@cosplayshop The prosecutor and more than one expert saying Baldwin was also at fault having his finger on the trigger, but the gun is bad ergonomically where it is hard to hold onto without the first finger on the trigger, sounds odd but true. This style of revolver caused a lawsuit years ago with Ruger having to recall them for accidental discharge. I think the whole bunch were on drugs. But every movie scene ever made will show the finger on the trigger with that revolver.
@@DonDyarprecision It needed more than just saying, first you need to prove that is his fault beyond the reasonable doubt (that's the guilty act part) then you need to also prove that he knows what he did will likely cause death (The guilty mind part). The prosecution needs to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt that Baldwin have both guilty mind and guilty act to be able to convict him on a criminal charge.
One of the requirements for them to convict Baldwin is the foreseeability issue, can Baldwin reasonably foresee that his action will most likely cause death of another person and he still do that. Unlike with HGR case, the prosecution only needs to prove HGR did not do the job she was hired to do and run the set she was hired to run.
It's very hard to do that regardless of the deficiency of the weapon.
@@cosplayshop I think so too, the armorer actually loading the weapon was an easier case.
1:02 "handling what he thought was a prop gun".
Everyone knew it wasn't a prop gun.
He also had a choice of the gun he wanted. He wanted ‘ the big one. ‘
“Baldwin was holding the gun that killed Helena”??? Mr talking head, go back and listen to yourself…
baldwins gonna get away with it
NM court, the fix is in. Baldwin walks free.
Alec is innocent let him go back to acting .
Guilty af
A lot of people in here angry Alec made fun of Trump . There is an expert paid to clear the guns ready before every shoot and she brought live ammo on to set as well . Clearly her fault !
The indictment should be thrown out. The prosecutor clearly didn't properly do her job. The case should go back to the grand jury and the case for indictment should be properly conducted.
@@almac9203 The motion to dismiss was denied. Baldwin is going to trial, as he should.
The safe handling of a firearm is not a "job" of an “armorer”. Every single adult in this country has a legal duty to not act with a willful disregard for the safety of others. Actors are not exempt from the law. The safe handling of a firearm is an individual legal requirement for anyone handling a firearm.
Alec Baldwin knew it was a real firearm capable of firing live rounds, assumed the gun was loaded with dummies, pointed it at Halyna Hutchins, cocked the hammer, and pulled the trigger. This is the very definition of involuntary manslaughter through negligent handling of a firearm. The applicable state laws are NM Stat § 30-7-4 and § 30-2-3.
A movie armorer is no different than a gun range safety officer. They are there as an extra safety to prevent people from being negligent. That, however, does not absolve anyone from criminal liability when they are negligent.
Oh, and two people were already convicted. Baldwin will be the third. Yes, multiple people can be negligent and cause the death of a human being.
@@charliefoxtrot5001 did you not see the errors by the prosecutor in the grand jury process? The indictment should have been thrown out and the prosecutor should have been made to go through the grand jury process again and this time made to do it properly. The prosecutor was dishonest and acted in bad faith. They purposely didn't make the jurors aware that they could seek evidence from the defence witnesses and actively steered the jurors away from requesting information from such witnesses. There was also a dodgy Jury instruction. They stated that the law was Baldwin was required to perform a safety check and that is one of the reasons why he should be indicted however that is at odds with what their own expert Bryan Carpenter testified in the Hannah Reid trial. I am not saying that Baldwin should not go to trial however I am saying that the prosecutor should follow proper procedure and get the indictment properly. If after going through the proper procedure the grand jury chooses to indict Baldwin that is fine but go through the correct process is what Baldwin's lawyers say and I agree. Emily D Baker covered the arguments I was making. She talked about the dodgy Jury instruction.
Not a huge fan BUT it was clearly NOT his fault . this is insanity. he's not a gunman for gods sakes.
he’s a bully that’s never been held accountable. but he’s a libterd so he gets a pass
The armorer's fault. She had one job and failed.
MANDATORY 5 TO 10 FOR MR PERSONALITY DEMORAT
5 to 10 months? The max for this if he is convicted is 18 months.
That type of prop is to be pointed at least 15° away from any person (like any reasonable & prudent person). The cinematographer & post production editing will make it appear like it’s was pointed correctly for the audience. However, the cinematographer in this case is no longer with us because that type of prop was pointed directly at her by the defendant.
That is up to individual production tho, pointing a prop (which was supposed to be safe by the way) to an actor in a movie itself is not a reckless act, in fact, I can name a few movie that do the pointing in person. That's why you have a armourer onset, and that's why you have Plexi-glass on set.
@@cosplayshop It was a real firearm, capable of firing real bullets and killing people. Calling it a prop does not make it less dangerous.
Baldwin assumed that the firearm was unloaded, pointed it at a person, manually cocked the hammer, and pulled the trigger. This is criminal negligence by definition.
A movie armorer is no different than a gun range safety officer. They are there as an extra safety to prevent people from being negligent. That, however, does not absolve anyone from criminal liability when they are negligent.
The vast majority of movie productions don't use real firearms. In fact, there was an inert replica of a 1873 Single Action Revolver made by Denix on the movie set of Rust that Baldwin should have used. After the killing of Halyna Hutchins, the production of Rust continued with that replica. It apparently required to kill an innocent person for gun safety to be taken seriously on that particular movie set.
@charliefoxtrot5001 The issue lies in your own phase "Baldwin assume the firearm are unloaded"
In NM court and to some extent, all manslaughter charge is the foreseeability of the result, which means it lay a very important fact that whether the person who had committed that crime willingly know that the result is going to happen, that's the definition of recklessness.
The first argument is, what is a prop, and what is a function firearm, it could be a real gun but somebody can tell me this is a prop and I will tend to believe it because it was used in a movie set, not every actor knows, or even had used firearm before, you cannot expect everyone to know the difference between a real firearm and a non functioning prop on set. I have worked as an armourer for over a decade, a cop a decade before, and then an Army Officer before that, sometimes even I have problem telling real firearms and a choked barrel blank prop that can only shoot blank. Go search "MGC M16A1" on RUclips and tell me you can spot that is a prop weapon by just looking at it?
The second thing is would a reasonable person expect firearms to be loaded with real projectile on set? A set is not run by normal Joe like you (can't say me because I do run a movie set) there are checks in place and a movie set is probably the last place on earth for someone to think to have a loaded gun. In you bedroom, yes, in the shop counter, yes, but there is no value for live round set at all, plus you have people who hired to do their job, which they didn't do, is that reasonable to expect the expert you hire to run the set didn't actually do their job?
Another issue is, calling a prop weapon a real gun does not make it MORE dangerous as well, the issue here is how do you control the set, because either all weapon are deadly, or they are not. Which weapon they use is, as I said, up to the production, but the safety of those weapon is maintained by the armourer. You aren't talking about someone pointing a blank loaded weapon and fire in front of some and making that person blind. We are talking about someone loaded a real projectile on a weapon and someone's dead, which bore more responsibility? The person who loaded that round or the person who fired that weapon? Couple with the fact the DA in this case said it long ago that they would go after who loaded the weapon, that's a big reasonable doubt right there, I mean if I was a jury, how do I know this is not a set up on Baldwin if you are not going to investigate how the live round fmgot there?
Finally, an armourer is NOT the same as a Range safety officer, unless your range officer train you on how to use weapon, rent you the weapon and ammo, and load each round you use in the weapon, they aren't the same.
@@cosplayshop The motion to dismiss got denied. Baldwin is going to trial. Your misreading of the the facts, the law and case law will certainly not end.
By his own statements to investigators, Alec Baldwin knew that he had a real, fully-functioning firearm in his hands and that he relied on the knowledge of others that is was loaded with dummy rounds.
Yes, any reasonable person expect firearms to be loaded with real projectiles on set. That's even in the SAG-AFTRA Safety Bulletin: "Treat all weapons as though they are loaded and/or ready to use."
Multiple people can be negligent and cause the death of a single human being, which is what happened here. Actors are not exempt from the law that requires them not to endanger the lives of others by negligently handling a firearm.
Every gun range has its own rules. For example, most do not allow people to draw from a holster without demonstrating to the range safety officer that they have been properly trained. The funny thing is, Alec Baldwin skipped his on-set training requirements, so you are actually making an argument that he is more liable because of that.
The ARMORER on set is responsible for the gun.
The ACTOR is told he has a "cold gun."
For those who want Baldwin to pay for it, you're making it personal.
Honest question:
If the EXACT same scenario happened to Jon Voight, would you want the same outcome for him?
He shouldn’t be found guilty as an actor pulling the trigger. He should be found guilty as a producer who cut costs and ran an unsafe set to save money. People walked off set that very day to protest how unsafe it was. He ignored that as a producer and someone died. He’s guilty of reckless indifference leading to manslaughter, again as a producer.
I don’t think he should be found guilty for pulling the trigger.
Yes. It's pretty simple, three basic rules of firearm safety and he ignored all of them. Don't care who it was, if you handle a gun ALWAYS treat it as if it's loaded. Jon Voight, the Pope, doesn't matter.
And he showed his cold self walking away from her body he just shot down.
The law says that the person holding the gun has to take reasonable care. It doesn’t matter if the gun is loaded or not, or what he was told. He cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger while pointing the gun directly at a person. All three of those acts were things he knew he shouldn’t have done because every armorer on every one of his movies told him during the gun safety lectures to never do those things.
@@JesusGringo That's civil liability......not criminal...
I am no fan of Alec Baldwin but,it doesn't matter if he pulled the trigger or not.The armorer was totally at fault.There should have been no live ammunition on the movie set.
That's not how the law works. Baldwin isn't the first person unintentionally shooting and killing someone. It happens about 500 times a year nationwide. The most uttered sentence after an unintentional shooting is: “I thought it was unloaded”. It never works in court.
Did the gun just go off at the pro-P protest lady getting a donut and he physically assaulted her by approaching her by making two steps and then reaching out and slapping the phone out of her hand while he hit her hand and wrist which she said he had purposely hurt her when he was doing that?
Come on, everyone knows you don't point even an empty gun at someone and then pull the trigger, why did he have to point to aim for a kill shot, and now he's not going to tell the truth, there's a reason to lie, why won't he admit it that he was stupid for doing it, answer is that he doesn't want to b know as stupid, then u did it on purpose
U don't know y he shot her and y the FBI broke the gun. Side work
He pulled the trigger. The FBI proved that in HGR case.
The FBI destroyed the evidence which is not due process. The defence wasn't given an opportunity to test the gun for themselves because the FBI destroyed the evidence. Are we just going to take their word for it?
@@almac9203 Destructive testing is quite common an no ground for dismissal. The evidence of pretty much every breathalyzer and blood alcohol test is destroyed, so should drunk drivers not get convicted? Don't be ridiculous!
@@charliefoxtrot5001 The issue is the defence team has to be notified that the gun is being tested under such circumstances so they can be present at the time and also given an opportunity to independently test it. Due process was not followed which can be grounds for throwing out the evidence. Your examples are laughable. One grounds for an appeal in Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol cases is the police destroyed all blood samples and failing to preserve samples for retesting!
@@almac9203 "The issue is the defence team has to be notified that the gun is being tested under such circumstances so they can be present at the time and also given an opportunity to independently test it." -- WRONG! There is no such statute. The defense is free to contest evidence in the trial.
"Due process was not followed which can be grounds for throwing out the evidence." --- How so?
"Your examples are laughable. One grounds for an appeal in Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol cases is the police destroyed all blood samples and failing to preserve samples for retesting!" -- Please cite any relevant case law!
@@charliefoxtrot5001 No you are wrong. There are lawyers that have commented on the Baldwin case and they said that Due process wasn't followed because the defence team weren't notified that the FBI were testing the gun to destruction. It stands to reason that the defence team should have an opportunity to view the testing and also have an opportunity to perform tests themselves. As for your BS about blood testing that comes from Griffin and Stevens a law firm and they state that law enforcement are supposed to draw a second sample and have that available for testing by the defence team. Failure to do so may be grounds to challenge the results. You are basically saying that prosecution and law enforcement can do testing and the defence has to accept the results with no opportunity to get independent testing which simply is not the case. That would be a dangerous precedent.
Armorer, who failed to do her job only got 18 months. That's really nothing considering a person was killed and other injured. Even if Alec is found guilty, I doubt if he'd get handed down a fraction of what she got.
That’s because New Mexico has a ridiculous 18 month maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter. Had this occurred in Maine Hannah Gutierrez-Reed would’ve been looking at up to 30 years for the same act (they don’t have involuntary manslaughter there so it would’ve been charged just as manslaughter) or in Florida it could’ve been up to 15 years. And then you’ve got places like Alabama where the max is a year, so it vastly varies by state. Hannah just got “lucky” it happened where it did or she’d be a middle aged woman before getting out.
It Should Definitely Be Dismissed! he’s An Actor Given A Prop. It’s Not His Responsibility To Know If The Prop Gun Had A Real Bullet In It. The Person Responsible Has Already Been Convicted And That’s Not Alec Baldwin. Leave Him Alone. He’s NOT GUILTY!
A) It's not a prop gun. A prop gun can't fire real ammo.
B) He knowingly didn't follow the safety rules required by the filming industry.
C) He's guilty.
George Carlin was right. You can fix ignorance, but you can’t fix stupid
The Judge Already wants to throw the case out. He’s NOT GUILTY!
Either the girl is responsible or not. This case should be dropped.