Alec Baldwin’s involuntary manslaughter case dismissed, cannot be filed again

Looks like he...

🕶️

Dodged a bullet...

Queue loud song by The Who...
- YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
- ¿Que loud song?

Now I'm very curious. It looks like the question revolves around how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved?

Did cops try to frame a guilty man?

Is Alec Baldwin the new OJ?

The prosecution brought an envelope of bullets into the courtroom but had never notified the defense they had them. That would be a BIG fucking 'nope' in any court case.
Archive source
- That's so fucking stupid it makes me question whether they intentionally tanked the case. This aspect of evidence disclosure is literally covered in My Cousin Vinny: https://youtu.be/uaoymfY9Kw0
Now I’m very curious. It looks like the question revolves around how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved?
Were you not 'very curious' enough to actually look at literally any of the real and active reporting on this before your comment?
There was no question as to 'how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved' and it is a core fact among the details of why case was dismissed.
They even played the officer's bodycam footage of an early formal interview of the former officer that brought the bullets in as evidence (that the officer on the stand pitifully tried to pretend wasn't an interview) in which the prosecutor was present. The evidence was intentionally filed under another case number so it wouldn't be associated with Baldwin's case (or the Reed case that I believe was ongoing when it was actually brought in). And THEN, cherry on top, they also discovered while looking at the undisclosed bullet evidence in this court, despite the prosecutors claims that the bullets were not associated with the Rust set thus not counted as evidence, that there were matching bullets of the type that were on the Rust set.
Some link to this as the moment the case fully unraveled: https://www.youtube.com/live/0VEoEvcJNhE?t=28995s
Where the prosecutor has put herself on the stand and opened herself up to answering defense questions under oath: https://www.youtube.com/live/0VEoEvcJNhE?t=32578s
It's among the craziest prosecutorial malfeasance shit I've ever seen from a high profile, video recorded court proceeding. One prosecutor resigned and LEFT earlier in the day as things were unraveling, and then the prosecutor that was still there put herself on the stand as-a-prosecution-witness to give testimony about the bullets, which even allowed the defense to question her about witness statements that she called Baldwin a cocksucker, about witness statements that she called Baldwin an arrogant prick, and about witness statements that she would 'teach him a lesson'. In the context of a lawyer, putting oneself on the witness stand as a lawyer in the case, even as a prosecutor, is mental breakdown levels of personal desperation, even if they want to claim it was an attempt to preserve an appeal of the dismissal.
If the evidence doesn't fit, you must acquit!

Glad he got off. I always thought it was bullshit that anyone would try to hold him accountable. The weapons expert, yes. The actor who was told the prop was safe, hell no.

Yes and no. The circumstances surrounding the death were… Not great. Evidence of Baldwin playing with the weapon, pretending to fire it, aiming it at cast and crew, etc… Plus there’s the whole “they were filming during a strike, and Baldwin (who was also the executive producer) went out of his way to hire an unqualified scab as a weapons master” part of things too.
- The armouror was a scab? That's the first I'm hearing of that. Do you have a link?
- Exactly this. There are a few reasons to hold him accountable. Plus she DIED, she wasn't just injured.
- That last bit is pretty damning. I hadn't heard that. Changes my thinking about his culpability.

There were no details, what evidence was withheld?

https://ghostarchive.org/archive/ecXyT

Amazing how they handled their case properly for the wage slave and got a conviction too...

While here they mishandled the case for a rich parasite?

How does this always happen haha

Clown world

If they wanted to let a rich person walk free they could have simply refused to prosecute
- That would be make the prosecutor look very bad in such high profile case.
  "Technical fumble" allows them to save face.
In the article it mentions how the evidence came to light after her conviction. I don't know if that means her appeal changes because of this, but it seems to me like this evidence only affected Baldwin's case and how the prosecution handled it.
Expensive lawyers are better about using slip ups to get their clients free, but that doesn't mean that the only difference between the two was money.

It's just baffling that even "fake guns" are so dangerous.

They're not fake guns; they're real guns with what was supposed to be fake ammo. Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real since you can see the tips of the bullets in the cylinder. Typically, there's a hole in the side of the casing indicating that it's a dummy round, but you can no longer see that once it's been loaded into the gun.
- Because the gun in question was a revolver, the ammo must also look real
  I have seen so much bad science, like basic physics mistakes, in movies that that's not really true. The average movie goer isn't going to know what the difference between a fake and real revolver by sight.
- Your comment baffles me further more. I just can't believe your gun "culture".
I was going to say there's no way those fake rubber guns or toy guns can be dangerous but then I remembered a police officer could shoot someone especially in america

There's still the possibility of a civil case. You can't put him jail but you can put him into bankruptcy.

I heard Rudy Giuliani is looking for work.

That's dumb. As an actor, I can understand it, but as the producer, he definitely bears responsibility for the actions of the crew.

Did you read WHY it was dismissed?
It was due to the actions of the police and prosecutor withholding evidence improperly.
- ACAB?
- Even if true, that's no reason to dismiss with prejudice.
Criminal or civil liability?
- They aren't mutually exclusive
- Criminal. Manslaughter is a criminal offense.
I was slightly torn on this one from a technicality standpoint, but not about the simple logic of it all. Disclaimer: It's been a while since I read all the details on this case.
For some reason, the armorer somehow allowed live cartridges on set and that is super bad. However, anyone that holds any kind of weapon should treat it like a weapon, especially if it is not marked as a prop or isn't visibly disabled.
It was a failure of the top two gun safety rules: Always treat a gun as if it is loaded, and, never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
The death of Brandon Lee years ago should have underscored how even prop guns can kill.
Edit: Are there points that are incorrect here? Weapon safety is super important.....
- never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
  It’s a bit unclear to me why he did that, but if he was practicing something he had to do in the movie, then that’s an exception. This is why there is an armorer role and no live ammo can be on set.
  If he was goofing around, that’s completely different, but haven’t seen sufficient clarification
- And there's the added layer of Baldwin being the producer, and so he's the guy who hired the crappy armorer in the first place.
  But ultimately none of that matters now. The reason this case was dismissed is not because of any of those questions of who's responsible for what on the set, it was dismissed because the police and the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense.
  You do not withhold evidence from the defense in a criminal trial, that's a huge no-no.
- So many movies have handled this. Aside from rare accidents (which are tragic), the industry has decided professional supervision removes the rule regarding pointing and killing
- However, anyone that holds any kind of weapon should treat it like a weapon, especially if it is not marked as a prop or isn't visibly disabled.
  You'll find this discussed at length already.

On a movie set where everything is fake and you have an on-set armorer whose job it is to make sure everything is, indeed, safe, it's a little bit different.
There's no expectation that a gun on a movie set would be real and firing real bullets.
- I keep trying to explain that to people too. The whole point of having an on-set armorer is so the actor can stay in their headspace and not have to worry about checking to see if a gun is loaded with live ammo when their character is supposed to assume it is.
At a range, sure. At home, sure. On the street, sure.
On a movie set, with someone who's entire job it is to make sure this shit doesn't happen handing it to you? No
- The friction is that Alec is not just an actor on that set, he's also a producer so he has extra responsibilities.
  But in that case, the cops and prosecutors fucked up and the judge has taken the right course of action as prescribed by the courts.
Ok, so you're an actor. You pick up the gun, you see bullets in it. You were trained that these are dummy rounds. You are operating in a professional environment where you were trained to expect what you have found.
What do you do?
Ok say you object, ask for a review. They review it. You pick up the gun, you see bullets in it. Now what do you do?
- Dozens of actors starve while trapped in loops exactly like this every year, yet we never hear about those tragic deaths. :(
- Half cock the pistol swing open the load gate and spin the cylinder 6 times. If you see a primer then you stop and ask a question. This isn't a 30-minute project, it takes 30 secs. Dummy rounds don't have primers, they even drill them so that it is obvious. 30-sec check.
  All guns are loaded until you verify that they are not.
- The actor that played gimli is over 6 foot tall. There's never been a 200 foot tall lizard attacking Tokyo. You can shoot a movie with guns safely without violating the most basic safety rules.
  If you hire roofers, tell them to fuck off when they give you a safety orientation, and you've already seen them drop two hammers off the roof, can you really say it's not your fault when you get clobbered?
- Other actors seem to do it just fine enough.
  Would you not expect someone driving a semi truck on a movie set to know how to drive safely even if the production is paying some dude to be an "Automobile Safety Coordinator"?
  And there's no need for ad hominems.
Removing my post doesn't make it less true and is just censorship at its finest. You check every gun every time no excuses.
- I mean if Rittenhouse can drive over state lines to counter a protest ,kill 3 people, claim self defense, and be found innocent, than certainly a man cutting corners by trying to save money on a film he's producing, staring in, and directing certainly can have his case dismissed with prejudice because of willful mishandling of evidence by the police and gross misconduct of the prosecutor.
  Plus Trump is a King, so....

Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case with prejudice based on the misconduct of police and prosecutors over the withholding of evidence from the defense in the shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film “Rust.”

“Grr I am so angry the police withheld evidence so you weren’t able to be properly charged that I’m going to make sure no one can ever charge you for it again this effectively ensuring the police and prosecutors won”

- Why would they want to play by the rules when they got a rich white man out of trouble?
  This is the result cops wanted.
The state should not be able to keep charging someone till they get it right. Thats the principal behind this dismissal. If the state can keep coming back to charge you we might as well be the Soviet Union.