Alec Baldwin Freed on Prosecutorial Misconduct ft. ScowlOwl

[@LegalEagle]

Will Gutierrez-Reed's conviction be overturned? 🚀 Extended version on Nebula! legaleagle.link/nebulaforlife Get a great lawyer, fast! ⚖ legaleagle.link/eagleteam

[@ignitionfrn2223]

Well, that trial went out *not* with a bang !

[@BSFJeebus]

I don't think it should, while Baldwin was ultimately responsible for the set as producer, Reed was outright negligent and deserves her punishment.

[@NicholasIrvin]

I have a question for you Eagle.Can you and your prosecutor buddy?React to this series called Lincoln lawyer.If you interesting see both your view on this series

[@networkedperson]

Imagine resigning in protest over ethical concerns... and then immediately interviewing with Cumo et. al....

[@minhduong1484]

​@@BSFJeebus This was not the only evidence the prosecution failed to turn over. It was cited that something like 900 pages of evidence was not turned over. On the surface, at the minimum Gutierrez-Reed should get a new trial. At best, the prosecution could win another conviction on facts. The problem is the taint of how this case has been handled will be highlighted by the defense to sow enough doubt to any jury especially if the prosecution lawyers receive disciplinary sanctions for the Baldwin case. The Rust case was problematic and troubled from the beginning. While the state could go forward with a new trial, it might be in the best interest of the state not to proceed with another Gutierrez-Reed case as it would air more dirty and shameful laundry about how badly their employees screwed up. Unfortunately this botched case may never find out the source of the live round or bring any closure to Halyna Hutchin's family.

[@venanziadorromatagni1641]

“The State has a clear duty to follow the law” is not something you want to have to remind prosecutors of…😮

[@thunderb00m]

Meanwhile the supreme court violating everything

[@RK-cj4oc]

​@@thunderb00m That is their job tho. The supreme court can overrule any laws or precedents in order to prevent the legal system from becoming " stuck" It is sad their appointment system is so broken.

[@scurvofpcp]

@@thunderb00m As someone who is lukewarm on Trump, I was hopeful that he would go down, we have so many politicians that commit criminal activities ( please see their stock trades) and if anything they get a slap on the wrist and Trump going down would have been a good first step in fixing that.

[@giaparmer]

@@RK-cj4oc I mean yes their job is to maintain the balance of power but the recent overreach of the Supreme Court is certainly not a part of their required duties.

[@RoonMian]

Neither is "nulla poena sine lege" but here we are.

[@_somerandomguyontheinternet_]

I remember when people were angry that Bill Cosby was released due to prosecutorial misconduct. My thoughts then were the same as now: If you’re going to be mad at anyone, be mad at the prosecutor who acted ridiculously unethically. If we cannot rely on the state to act in the interests of our civil rights and civil liberties, then we are not a free nation.

[@DesertFarmer22]

No, no. That's too reasonable.

[@jlighter1]

Didn’t the Cosby case also involve some “be mad at the previous prosecutor who didn’t write stuff down (re: the non-prosecution deal)” elements?

[@tailkinker1972]

This.

[@AbstractTraitorHero]

We aren't a free nation at all my man.

[@xar226]

Perversely, I actually _like_ to see rulings like this. It gives me a little bit of confidence that the rules are actually being followed and that a fair trial matters more than a desired outcome. Without that assumption, our entire system of justice falls apart. Now what I want to see next is discipline for the prosecutors involved, as well as charges for the police officers, particularly the Lieutenant who seemingly ordered a subordinate to hide evidence and then modified her report to try to bury it even further.

[@xar226]

I think establishing bad faith of the prosecutor is actually easier than the judge did it: If the ammunition truly had no evidentiary value to the defense team, then there is no reason _not_ to turn it over. "This evidence doesn't hurt my case at all, let's conceal it" is absurd on its face. In a perverse way, it may _help_ your case, because now the defense team has to consider evidence that isn't going to help them instead of focusing on what might. I'll simply echo what Ms. Johnson said: It's not the prosecution's place to decide this.

[@gavinjenkins899]

In this case I agree, but in many even most cases, the evidence would require invasive subpoenas or have privacy issues, etc. E.g. information from medical records.

[@AceMoonshot]

@@gavinjenkins899 The state still has to let the defense know when evidence exists and that they possess it. If it can be used or not is up to the court. If it will be used or not is up to the defense. Neither is up to the prosecutor. Regardless of the case.

[@sirprize8572]

@@gavinjenkins899 Invasive subpoenas?? Brady concerns evidence _already obtained_ by the state through lawful means. We're past the point of subpoenas and privacy concerns when the evidence is already in the hands of sheriffs/prosecutors.

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@sirprize8572 Brady requires it to be RELEVANT. Which was the whole point in contention. Turns out it was, but if they actually thought it was not relevant, then Brady would not have applied. Sharing stuff with the whole world definitely has privacy concerns beyond the police having it. Edit: unless you just meant I shouldn't have mentioned "subpoenas": sure, for Brady that word choice doesn't make sense. I was more broadly talking about discovery and evidence in general though.

[@gavinjenkins899]

@@AceMoonshot Sure, I may have not listened carefully enough and misunderstood if the issue is they lied about it existing at all, not just its relevance.

[@josephmatthews7698]

I think the biggest takeaway here is if the prosecutor thought they could get away with this against a major celebrity in the biggest case of their life ... Just imagine everything theyve gotten away with against regular people in trials that will never see the light of day.

[@Haarschmuckfachgeschafttadpole]

She's not a prosecutor though, she's a defense attorney who was hired on as the special prosecutor for the armorers and Baldwins trial. So it's not like this will affect her since she's not elected or a DA in practice.

[@MrBrock314]

@@Haarschmuckfachgeschafttadpole It will certainly affect her as a now infamous defense attorney who bungled a high-profile case.

[@godrickstockwell1505]

There's no doubt this prosecutor has tanked her career. Every case she's associated with going forward is going to be under extreme scrutiny and the defense can easily point to this as established fact. I wouldn't be surprised if people have started quietly going through her other cases looking for issues there. If she retires after this it wouldn't surprise me

[@markpotze1848]

You can apply this logic backwards as well ; She opted to neglect her ethical duties as a lawyer because winning a high profile case could substantially benefit her career. Both yours and this takeaway is mere speculation. A single mistake or misstep isn’t some sort of evidence of larger corruption, although it does warrant suspicion. I think her potentially depriving the victim’s family of justice is enough to be outraged about.

[@alex_zetsu]

They probably do get away with it against regular people. A lot of cases ending up as plea bargains. Philidelphia did this experiment in the 90s where a random selection of those who plea bargained got a bench trial (the judge decides the verdict and there is no jury) and found that in 10% of cases the prosecution's case was so weak that it fell apart without the defense even doing anything. So either Philidelphia cops are unusually incompetent (since they are the ones who identify the suspects) or this would be typical in USA. Someone suggested that bench trials just replace the plea bargain since at least they are trials. At least that means if a prosecutor tries this kind of shit, it would be exposed.

[@danielhale1]

This case is baffling to me. The prosecution hides evidence, thinks that's fine. Prosecution _destroys_ the gun in testing, then decides to rebuild it with new parts and confidently announces it's the same as when it was fired. Prosecution decides the actor who fired the gun on a western movie set (where prop guns are commonly fired at people) should go to jail. Every step you go backward makes the case look even more insane. Thank the ethical prosecutor who stepped down and the judge who threw it out. Imagine the number of cases where such misconduct isn't brought to light.

[@nataschavisser573]

Said actor did not supply the gun and the live rounds or loaded the gun. I can get charging the armourer since she was clearly not doing her job properly but don't get why you would charge Baldwin.

[@stryletz]

You forgot charging the defendant with a crime that wasn’t in effect at the time of the incident…

[@RK-cj4oc]

​@@nataschavisser573The people that want to charge Baldwin are divided in 2 camps. 1. Those that belief the final responsibility is always on the person pulling the trigger. Even if there is someone checking for him he should have checked if it was empty and on principle he should have some punishment for it. 2.The people that just want to hate because he is a Hollywood star and want him to be screwed over

[@SullySadface]

Mmm, Ship of Theseus.

[@Aryasvitkona]

​@@nataschavisser573yeah. The reason sets that use weapons hire licensed armorers is because actors CANNOT be trusted to have enough gun handling knowledge to verify a gun is only armed with blanks, or not loaded at all. Sure some MAY have that prerequisite knowledge, however it isn't something they should be expected to know, so they literally pay someone to handle that for them.

[@markymark2820]

That's crazy that they not only didn't turn over the evidence but went so far as to try and hide it under a different case to make sure they wouldn't be able to find it. Actually disgusting.

[@DeRussellMasina]

The American justice system

[@Nick-Nasti]

Hiding the info proves its value to the defense. You don’t hide non-evidence.

[@AnyoneCanSee]

It's normal in the USA. They elect prosecutors and sheriffs and so there is a massive temptation to put your finger on the scales of justice in order to gain reelection. In other developed nations, people are promoted to such positions so they don't need to lock up innocent people to keep their jobs. It is the same with politics. In other developed nations there are strict spending limits on political campaigns. In the USA they spend billions on a campaign for a job which pays 0.00001% of that spending. So again corruption is baked into the system. They take donations and then make laws to benefit those rich donors. This is why the USA is ranked so poorly for corruption. It is basically an oligarchy built to benefit the rich and powerful.

[@wor1dconquerer170]

​@@Nick-Nastihow would the ammo have changed anything? The question is did he or did he not aim a gun towards someone and accidentally shoot them

[@annekeener4119]

@@wor1dconquerer170it would have changed the defenses Alec Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed would have used in their cases. For Gutierrez-Reed, it would have changed the arguments she used or pushed her towards a guilty plea instead of a trial. In general though, the DA has a legal obligation to turn over all evidence to the defense and judge no matter which side it helps. The DA didn’t do that and Baldwin’s jury was already sworn in, so the charges were dismissed with prejudice (aka the DA can’t bring them again). Gutierrez-Reed was convicted, but is practically guaranteed a mistrial at the worst or a complete expunging of the conviction upon appeal thanks to this miscarriage of justice. This is all the DA’s fault.

[@wyskass861]

It's a red flag when prosecutors criticise "fancy" defense attorneys. Suggests some bone to pick and win, rather than blind justice.

[@jdotoz]

When "fancy" really just means "competent."

[@wyskass861]

@@jdotoz Ya, it supports their bias against big city attorneys, coming into their little county, and how they wanted to stick it to Hollywood. Not saying for sure but multiple indications of such.

[@GoXDS]

I can sorta see an argument if it was a situation where charges are dropped because of loopholes and technicalities that are against the spirit/intent of a law. it's utterly ridiculous when trying to say one of the country's founding principles (and thus very much the spirit of the law) is just being fancy

[@lpr5269]

@@GoXDS Let's face it. The prosecutor tried to charge Baldwin with the enhanced statute for Involuntary Manslaughter with a firearm (5 Year Max instead of 18 months) despite knowing full well that the incident happened before that statute was passed. It seems like everything she did was based on "Maybe no one will notice." Hey I didn't log those bullets into evidence or disclose them to the defense BUT MAYBE NO ONE WILL NOTICE.

[@Unknown-jt1jo]

Nah, it's just standard rhetoric. It's like when the defense says the prosecution is engaging in a "witchhunt."

[@CrabbyOldLady]

Baldwin didn't "point the gun in the direction of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins". He pointed it in the direction of the camera, because that was exactly what the script called for him to do in the scene. The scene was to show the shot from the point of view of the person being shot. Baldwin was practicing the precise action he was to do in the scene. Hutchins, as cinematographer, positioned herself behind the camera to see exactly what the camera would be capturing.

[@jendee1260]

thank you for stating this. people forget this detail in the interest of holding alec accountable and not to “victim blame” helena, may she rest in peace.

[@JonathonBilger]

I wholeheartedly agree. I really dislike Baldwin as a person but he should’ve never been prosecuted. His job is to literally shoot at the camera. Whoever is to blame, it shouldn’t be Baldwin.

[@alb91878]

What about the previous crew quitting because of the safety issues and what about Baldwin taking on the phone and ignoring the instructor during gun safety instructions?

[@stackflow343]

@@alb91878 He's not on trial for those, and neither of them have anything to do with real ammunition finding its way into the set?

[@alb91878]

@@stackflow343 I brought that up because for me that would show a pattern of disregarding safety issues. As the producer of the show and the owner of the set he's liable for anything and everything that takes place on that sct including the hiring and vetting of the armorer. I don't believe for a second that he didn't know why the previous crew quit. The live rounds in addition to disregarding safety were stated as part of their reasons. He should have tried to find out how/if the live rounds got there by grilling his armorer, since that was her responsibility and I haven't seen evidence of him doing that (please correct me if I'm wrong). At the very least he should be charged with negligence.

[@elaine_of_shalott6587]

The complaint about his "fancy lawyers" getting him off just emphasizes how often they have done similar things and gotten away with it against less priveleged defendents.

[@Dadofer1970]

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos "Non-evidence" that was delivered as part of the case, but then intentionally logged so that it would not show up as part of the case, and even had text added to the report later to claim that it wasn't related to the case. Yeah, sure.

[@OdinBarenjagerschlos]

@@Dadofer1970 Delivered by someone with no authority and zero secure chain of custody for the previous 3 years. They should have said take your garbage with you when you leave. Fr the scandal here is likelier who motivated him to turn in a meaningless mixed bag of duds at the exact worst hour for the prosecution.

[@billberg1264]

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos They didn't "treat it as non-evidence." They _logged it as evidence._ At that point, they had the legal obligation to treat it like any other piece of evidence they logged. Any argument they could have made about it being "non-evidence" went out the window when they went though the formal process of acknowledging it as evidence. Anyway, if they really believed it had no bearing on the case, why did they go out of their way to conceal it? The whole bit about deliberately filing it under an unrelated case only makes sense as intentional deception. Hiding what you're doing is a pretty clear indicator that you know you're doing something wrong.

[@OdinBarenjagerschlos]

@@billberg1264 Then why do those legal obligations mention "relevant"? You are making up the dichotomy of "made him take it back" vs "took it off the complainants hands" (at which point police employees have to record everything no matter how silly). The one making the argument and the person (/dummy) who picked it off the counter are not the same people and you are treating them as if they are. And the Lieutenant did not acknowledge it as evidence, just the opposite. TBPH he probably felt pressured into it by the experience of the retired cop that TBPH was plausibly paid by the defense. The separate case thing was stupid, but really an extension of cops acting like garbage collectors and CYA not the prosecutors. The prosecutors didn't go out of their way for anything, they may have at most said 'what do you mean "don't worry it's not probative?" it's 3 years late that's giving a slick lawfare team ammunition -- if you're telling me it's not evidence in my case don't log it as evidence in my case.'

[@Dadofer1970]

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos Stop digging.

[@tgfabthunderbird1]

This is what happens when a prosecutor goes on a crusade, and believes the case will launch them to the bench, or into politics. Terrible misconduct. Some people need to go up before the Bar Association.

[@BigTylt]

I can easily see some of the prosecutors trying to run political campaigns on the statements of "I put a prominent woke Hollywood elite in prison, so you can trust me to be hard on corruption"

[@ill_bred_demon9059]

Exactly. It reminds me of "The Thin Blue Line" where the prosecution charged a guy with murdering a police officer not because the evidence pointed to him, but because the other suspect (who did in fact kill the officer) was a minor and the prosecutor wanted to get a death penalty conviction. Not important who actually did the crime, but what gives the prosecution the most bragging rights

[@virtualgambit577]

@@ill_bred_demon9059was this a real case? If so could you tell me its name? It sounds like a movie plot!

[@AceMoonshot]

@@virtualgambit577 Yes, real. Search for, "The Thin Blue Line."

[@ill_bred_demon9059]

@@virtualgambit577 "The Thin Blue Line" is actually a documentary from 1988 by Errol Morris. I highly recommend. Proved the man was innocent

[@andreapayneconnally390]

an explosive hearing is an understatement. The judge was beyond pissed off and the hearing wasn't some little hour long hearing. It took an entire day, the judge had to take a 20 minute break so she could compose herself, the prosecutor took the stand. The judge made up her mind after seeing the bullets that got turned over. That hearing was amazing to watch. and that was after the defense had a MASSIVE L the day before.

[@odisseusrh]

Don't forget the judge gloves up and broke the seal on evidence to see the rounds.....she was not happy with the state. And this after an accusation of signalling from the state

[@AceMoonshot]

Watching the judge's journey that day was fascinating to watch. There was a point when the judge suddenly asked "why not?" in response to a witness' answer. It was an 'excited utterance.' Then she reflexively shook her head and started re-framing the question, then dropped the question and changed tact. I think it was then that the judge started to get royally pissed off. It was like she went through a weird 5 stages of grief.

[@andreapayneconnally390]

@@AceMoonshot I've rewatched it and watching her go from 'ok, what do they have now' to 'wtaf prosecutor' knowing how it would end is something to rewatch. When she asked the detective if the prosecutor was involved in those meetings and she said yes, I could see daggers and steam coming the judge. That right there was the moment this case was done. She was so calm telling her she didn't need to take the stand. I still can't believe she did. It was wild.

[@AceMoonshot]

@@andreapayneconnally390 When she took the stand, it was self-serving sophistry. And the judge, by that time, was past caring what she had to say. It seemed like the judge had reached a point where she felt like, 'I just want to be away from this stupid, stupid woman asap.' *edit: it was indeed wild. Not sure I have been more stunned watching a criminal trial. And I have watched countless trials. So that is saying something lol.

[@andreapayneconnally390]

@@AceMoonshot I had Emily s baker on. She was saying everything I think the judge was thinking. ‘The fk did she just say’ was said multiple times. Floored I was just floored.

[@sid1gen]

In Orange County, California, a few years ago several prosecutors lied to the presiding judge in the Dekraai mass murder case, which was a slam-dunk for the DA but they broke the law to win it and then lied about it. The judge called them on that, called them liars to their faces, and then recused the entire District Attorney's Office of Orange County from prosecuting the death penalty phase for the defendant Dekraai. The then-OCDA threw a hissy fit and had the judge permanently "papered," that is, he would not be accepted as a judge by any Deputy District Attorney in the County. So the best and most senior judge in OC at the time spent more than one year with zero (0) cases, frozen by a disgusting, vendetta-pursuing DA and his set of entitled liars. California governor Jerry Brown eventually promoted the judge to the California Court of Appeals. It was an honor to know you and to have worked (not as an attorney) in cases you presided, Justice Thomas Goethals. Respect

[@Ihelpertricks]

Im from Northern Cali but I know this story as well. One of the best judges in the state.

[@Badficwriter]

I'm from Orange County and I am not surprised. We are the birthplace and library site of Richard Nixon.

[@alb91878]

That is disgusting!!! They should have been locked up!

[@MrIrishpunk]

How does that happen? How does a prosecutor get to decide what the judge can and can’t preside over?

[@lifesecho4456]

@@MrIrishpunkso far as I know, they can’t, BUT, given how corrupt the OCDA sounds, probably knew the right people to grease the wheels on the right kind of complaint, and then the slothful weight of bureaucracy takes hold.

[@victorolosaurus]

I am neither american nor a lawyer, but I found this argument "the armorer was a young woman, so Baldwin should have second guessed her" horrendous. Not at least, because that is a horrible look for the male lead to not trust any of the presumptive experts on set

[@airplanes_aren.t_real]

I'm surprised no one said it was the victim's fault

[@TheRibottoStudios]

It IS the armorer's fault but her gender has nothing to do with it. As stated in the video, her lack of experience was the issue.

[@realKarlFranz]

If they had a better prosecutor Baldwin might have actually faced consequences for his actions. Celebrity privilege wins again.

[@Ocrilat]

None of the prosecution's case made any sense.

[@PA_Sword]

@@realKarlFranz Naw, the celebrity was dead to rights (no pun intended). The prosecution had this case in the bag simply for handling the firearms in negligent manner. But the prosecution decided to try to be dirty and it back fired. Kudos to the co consul that immediately recused herself from the case though.

[@omegamkx588]

I highly respect Johnson for dropping out of the case when she learned about the hidden evidence. It’s utterly disgusting that the state would do such a thing, when they should be looking to ensure that justice and the rule of law are upheld. We need stronger punishments for blatantly corrupt acts like this

[@nobodyimportant7804]

Yup, there are some prosecutors and cops that need to be defendants.

[@ypw510]

It should be pointed out that the lead prosecutor was in her capacity as a special prosecutor. But as a defense attorney, she would have known what a Brady disclosure was and would have insisted on it if she was defending a client.

[@BkNy02]

She was a special prosecutor. The town was so small that they didn't have a prosecutor. The state had to hire a private attorney to act as a special prosecutor. So yeah her private practice's credibility is in the dumps right now.

[@ypw510]

@@BkNy02 Most prosecutions are done by the Santa Fe County District Attorney representing the state. Santa Fe County has a population over 150,000. They had the resources to prosecute this without outside attorneys but the DA chose to bring in outside attorneys.

[@wor1dconquerer170]

Corrupt? the ammo really isn't necessary. The armoror who handled the ammo was already sent to prison. The question in Baldwins case was Did he or did he not aim his gun at someone and then accidentally shoot them?

[@bikkiikun]

And of course, the Prosecutors who withheld evidence (thereby committing Tampering with Evidence, Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law and Conspiracy against Rights), will not face criminal charges.

[@PrebenHPedersen]

Jep she should not be able to be a lawyer again.

[@kianeko2120]

Nope they won't and it's infuriating

[@livingglowstick1337]

They will lose their licences and will be fined. Not the first time this has happened at all it happens all the time

[@SirPhilMcCrackinVonBeggington]

Nothing criminal happened. I understand you just consume whatever garbage legal smegol puts out, but this ammo was made to the attention of HANNAH LAWYER during HER trial, and the guy told Troy to F-OFF with the ammo because it would have HURT her case. The reality is that this ammo would have had no outcome on Baldwin's trial--he's absolutely got away with criminal charges for manslaughter (like OJ Simpson, for example) but he will most likely lost his upcoming civil trial (also like OJ Simpson).

[@robertmcnearny9222]

There at least should be a complaint to the New Mexico Bar Association.

[@ItWasSaucerShaped]

there's also the irony of the prosecution charging that the defense attorneys are the big fancy lawyers, implying that they are corrupt / dishonest, while themselves happily engaging in corruption and dishonesty

[@Visplight]

Especially "Oooh, big fancy lawyers figured out that 2022 comes AFTER 2021!" A child could have figured that one out.

[@roqua]

Trying to use the word "fancy" as a stand-in for "spinning complicated logical arguments" is a big tell for me that someone is trying to appeal to confusion and stupidity, and often very desperately so.

[@amrabilalovic9651]

It's not irony, it's projection. They projected the undesirable traits of themselves to others.

[@liamhome1664]

Props to Johnson. Ethical behavior is what separates the strong societies from the weak, and she showed a lot of strength and courage in that situation.

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

From what I understand, that's the day she found out about the violations. She was absolutely right to quit at that point even though she probably already knew that the case was going to be dismissed outright whether or not she quit. Waiting to see what the reaction was would have just served to increase the likelihood of sanctions for her while doing nothing useful for the rule of law.

[@OdinBarenjagerschlos]

Or she and the retired deputy were both paid off to make a 3 years late evidence kerfuffle out of literally nothing. Maybe. It is neither exculpatory nor incriminating that a supplier in another state still had a bunch of randomly assorted rounds (looks like mostly old duds) that included just one that did, or did not, match the *brand and category* of ammo of the set of live rounds brought to the set. It makes as much sense as me asking cops in another state to take my Fiesta ST into evidence when a trial that is almost over involved another Fiesta ST from the same dealership in a vehicular homicide. The Lieutenant made the prosecutor nervous by taking the rounds and documenting that they are of no evidentiary value, because while completely true it's a one sided opinion roughly 3 years late. Right now I bet everyone is thinking "tell him to take the rounds elsewhere this isn't a garbage dump" was the right play. Maybe give the defense teams address, just make it clear they aren't considering 'maybe'ing the decision made 3 years back that what the retired guy offered them wasn't probative.

[@eddiek8179]

Props to her for being ethical but she's just as idiotic as the rest of them for trying to charge Baldwin in the first place. When Brandon Lee was shot by another actor in The Crow, no one went after the other actor. They understood the distinction and nuance of the situation.

[@jawstrock2215]

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos there was a bunch of ammo that matched exactly what was found on the rust set in the lot. They just never checked, before that hearing. And the guy bringing them to the police linked them to the Rust case, that alone makes it relevant, and need to be given info to the defense. It's not the prosecutor's right to decide for the defense if it's not relevant or not. Someone said it's part of Rust, prosecution doesn't think so? they still have to give it, so the defense can test that affirmation. And it can give other evidence then just "same ammo as set" it can show disregard about mixing different kind of ammo together from that source itself, which could be used by the defense. Must be quite a sad world, to think anyone can just be given money to go against their principles or morals, and then lie effortlessly about it. Very few people actually could do that.

[@SaladofStones]

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos I am sorry that you lose your case, but that is why you should turn things over to the defense, buddy.

[@tomservo5007]

this wasn't the first time that person logged evidence under the wrong case number on purpose. That person should be seeing jail time

[@retched]

Honestly, yes. This seemed deliberate.

[@UndarZ]

I wonder how many innocent people are sitting in jail because of them...

[@SmallSpoonBrigade]

@@UndarZ VP Harris even engaged in something like that when she was AG.

[@stackhat8624]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade yeah but she isnt a convicted felon like Trump

[@Gun4Freedom]

@@SmallSpoonBrigade Specifics?

[@Nefville]

Let's be clear, Baldwin didn't just point the gun at Hutchens, he was told to. By her. He was also told the gun was safe by the guy he shot in the arm. Its amazing that a charge was even pursued by the prosecutor but all the answers became clear when you heard her talk about the case. It was a BIG career move for her, a big name she stand on the corpse of to be seen nationally. No matter what you think about Baldwin or gun safety or whatever, those aren't the facts of a sound prosecution or a winnable case and what should worry everyone is what happens to the poor person in a similar situation who can't afford top notch lawyers. You think they would have gotten this ruling? Nope.

[@Scorch428]

Now Baldwins on the loose, and theres not stopping him! Buy kevlar!

[@sid1gen]

Agree. It should have never been charged, let alone charged the way it was. As to your other comment, 20 years of experience with the justice system (not as an attorney) have taught me that Justice can, and usually does work, for rich people and police officers. Justice rarely works for the poor under the same circumstances. The poor may get lucky with a good Public Defender (I admire PDs because they tend to be hard-working, dedicated, and selfless; a minority in my experience are jerks I would Marsden, but most are terrific professionals overburdened with cases), but even with that, the system works against poor people: the resources are simply not there to defend against the State's apparently limitless goodies: investigators, experts, labs, police departments and, more often than not, the quiet team-spirit of judges: angering the Public Defender's Office does not worry anyone. Angering the District Attorney's Office and the Police/Sheriff's Department is a completely different proposition. Besides, most judges get there after at least 10 years as Deputy District Attorneys. Some are good. Some are mediocre. A few are excellent. And there are plenty of bad ones. Add to all of this the juries' tendency to apply Presumption of Guilt (the defendant is on trial so the defendant MUST have done something criminal) regardless of what the law says, and you have a recipe for rushing to judgment, railroading the poor, and going through the motions, not the substance, of Justice.

[@MrBrock314]

@@Scorch428 Unless you're on a movie set with him and that armorer, I wouldn't worry too much.

[@infidelheretic923]

The problem then becomes the armorer of the set. And the person who hired that armorer, the executive producer. Who was the executive producer....oh yeah also Alex Baldwin.

[@Nefville]

​@@infidelheretic923 There were 7 other producers on the film and none of them were charged. The armorer was the problem, agreed, and she's where she belongs in jail. I was a manager for a long time, you can't control everything the people under you do. You have to rely on the people under you because its just not possible to do and monitor absolutely everything yourself. If I hire a lawn service with a poor rating on Google and on the way to my house they run someone over, is that my fault, because I hired the cheapest lawn service knowing they had bad reviews? Now what if 8 of us hired the lawn service and only I get charged, is that fair? No and no. I get it, a lot of people don't like him, hell I think he's a jerk but I dislike a justice system that railroads a person for clout even more. Just look at what they tried to pull off in this video, is that a prosecution you'd trust because I wouldn't.

[@contortionyx]

Read something that was like "any time you see police or prosecutors complain about how a defense attorney got the defendant off on a technicality, remember that that technicality only exists overwhelmingly because the state didn't do its job correctly". Those "technicalities" exist to protect citizens from government overreach (re: attacking citizens criticizing the government). In order to prove the state is not giving preferential treatment to some, these "technicalities" Need to exist for *everyone* at *All* times.

[@dontmisunderstand6041]

The technicalities only get people off if the police or the prosecution broke the law. They should count themselves lucky that THEY aren't facing prison time for it, because in an actual just society, they would.

[@NoriMori1992]

Well said. I'm going to try to find the original quote.

[@CloneMalone]

How can one assume that a **film** armorer would potentially bring live ammunition to a **film** set That's like saying "oh you should have known not to eat the food at that restruant because the chef was new and may have poisoned it on accident"

[@irrelevantFJS]

I don't get it either. I would assume ANYONE hired to work with guns on a set has ample experience with guns and would never make such a mistake. Otherwise, why was she hired?

[@DaTimmeh]

"It was his first time preparing pufferfish, why are you surprised it went wrong?"

[@oBCHANo]

@@arjaygeeYou are straight up wrong. The ultimate responsibility for the guns on set is the armourer, it's the entire reason an armourer was hired in the first place. Do you think they hired her just to get guns? in America? You clearly haven't thought through your "argument."

[@thepudgyninja]

@@arjaygee Unless Baldwin had specific responsibilities relating to safety and the hiring of the armorer (he didn't), the fact that he's a producer would have no relevance in a criminal proceeding (and the judge ruled exactly that). As a producer, he likely does share some financial, civil liability along with the rest of the producers to the victim's family.

[@dtracers]

Or trusting that "boneless" chicken from a restaurant won't have bones in it.... Well we saw how that turned out

[@BSFJeebus]

after years of going to courts, I've learned a large number, an uncomfortable amount of prosecutors are ill fit for their positions. it's disturbing, these people are responsible for deciding fates, so of course ethical responsibilities are serious, when they violate them, it's disheartening.

[@ansteve1]

In my state you have to vote on the DAs. I really hate it because unlike other elected officials you really can't see voting records like other officials without doing extensive research. How the average voter is supposed to do that is beyond me.

[@AsmodeusMictian]

Most of them care only about a win. How they get there is only of passing importance. Just make sure that you cover your tracks, you know? Same goes for dirty cops. That "Thin Blue Line" that.....protects the worst of them from ever being held responsible even when it's OBVIOUS that they acted maliciously. If you ask me, the legal system in a lot of places has a LOT of distance to cover before I would ever actually trust them again. There's just been too many examples of too much complicity and petty vengeance.

[@ypw510]

I believe the entire prosecution team was special prosecutors who were defense attorneys in private practice.

[@gregortheoverlander4122]

For real. Last time I got called to a jury, it was for a rapper who was a felon and had a gun. The prosecution pounded us with evidence that he talked about owning guns in his rap songs. Every juror was flabbergasted. We had some real rednecks on the jury who cringed every time they played a song. But even they were like, "it's music. Johnny Cash has songs about shooting people dead. Doesn't mean he actually did it." They ruined their case with the music evidence.

[@ansteve1]

@@gregortheoverlander4122 "your honor, we the jury find the prosecutor guilty of wasting our time.

[@planespeaking]

The attitude of Poppel and Morrissey was absolutely disgusting. They were smirking, rolling eyes, and deliberately having zero recollection to the point of contempt. The right decision was made. I hope they are sued.

[@blakekaveny]

Also the lead investigator corporal Hancock being completely oblivious. Not having read the supplemental report. Not having watched the footage of when the sheriff officer received this evidence. Not having looked at it.

[@planespeaking]

@@blakekaveny It was cringe to watch.

[@nsvo9038]

Wrong

[@burp2019]

this case is the kind of shit you'd expect to see in a phoenix wright game, not in a real court

[@tunnfisk]

I never thought that Baldwin should have been indicted. But whoever put the live rounds on the set, and the armorer responsible for the gun, should be. Her leaving the case was a boss move. I'm also not a big fan of "sue this, sue that", but Baldwin 100% should sue all of them. Crazy case.

[@shadowproductions969]

If he was JUST an actor on the movie, I'd agree.. but being that he hired the armorer and everything has to go through him, he was ultimately responsible for everything that happened on that set. That being said, I think the guys who changed the ammo, the armorer and Alec should ALL have faced varying degrees of charges.

[@bradp2209]

He was given a gun with the capacity to fire live rounds and did not clear the gun. That is directly against gun safety 101, which means he either didn't have firearms training, or he did and didnt follow proper safety procedure. Negligent either way. If you cleared a gun directly in front of Keanu, the first thing he would do when he picked it up would be to clear it again. This is why people are upset he will have no accountability. I would expect him to be sued successfully in civil court.

[@tunnfisk]

@@bradp2209 I'd question why a gun with the capacity to fire live rounds was on set. He's an actor. I promise you, no actor checks their guns. Like a chef prepares a meal that kill someone because there was contamination in the food they ordered to the kitchen. The chef should have made a culture sample of the food to see if there were harmful microbes in it. It's not reasonable or expected. That said, I am a person who believes in gun safety and that all guns should be treated as "live". Which again, makes me wonder why even have a gun that is capable of shooting live rounds, and even worse, have live rounds on set. You can easily make a prop gun look real. Makes no sense, other than that the armorer was incompetent beyond belief.

[@Kaimax61]

@@shadowproductions969 WHO? There was 11 PRODUCERS for that movie. you people acting like Baldwin was responsible FOR EVERYTHING is why the case is getting TOSSED.

[@alex_zetsu]

@@bradp2209 The rules of guns are a bit different for movies (at least if the business is certified to make them.... long story) basically it assumes actors don't know gun safety 101 and need their hands held by professional armorers or they'll do something stupid. Basically the law treats them as if you need to tell them everything. If an actor is working for the major studios (and most of the minor ones) odds are high that if there is no malice the liability will be squarely on the armorer and producer. When a film is made, money is put up to the job and some man high up in management takes ultimate responsibility for everything that happens.

[@lnsflare1]

Baldwin: "The gun was broken so that it went off by itself." Prosecutor: "We determined that the gun needed to be deliberately fired in order to go off... after we replaced the parts that might have been broken during the original shooting."

[@gay4femboys]

It didn't break during the initial shooting. It broke during the first round of testing by the FBI, when they were trying to see if the gun was capable of firing without pressing the trigger.

[@lnsflare1]

@@gay4femboys As noted in the video, Baldwin was claiming that it was already broken to the point where it would fire without needing to pull the trigger, which is why they were testing for that in the first place. If they broke any parts relevant to that function and replaced them, then they essentially fixed it before determining whether or not he was telling the truth about it already being broken, then declared that he was lying because the part they fixed now worked normally.

[@gay4femboys]

@@lnsflare1 they put the gun through extreme circumstances to see if they could get it to fire like Baldwin claimed. During the many tests, the firearm broke. The repair definetly raised eyebrows and made any results afterwards not as trustworthy, but if it took a mallet strike against a lowered hammer to make the gun fire without pulling the trigger, then i don't think the hammer dropped on its own to fire or self ignited. I believe Alec negligently discharged the revolver, but bc of the ammunition, it was fatal. Unfortunately what happened to the ammunition was never cleared up as the PD and prosecutors really messed up, a lot, and that is what got the case thrown out.

[@sid1gen]

@@gay4femboys The prosecution is on record lying about evidence, mishandling evidence, recording evidence under a different case number so it would not have to be shared with the defense, but we are expected to give them a pass when "they" said the gun broke because they had to hit it with a hammer. We are expected to believe they are telling the truth and nothing but the truth about the tests. Did I understand this correctly?

[@DeltaStormYT]

Okay? You clearly don’t understand law. Where if you’re drunk and shoot someone you can’t possibly be held accountable because “you wernt acting knowingly”

[@Euphamia]

What i don't get... is if the gun wouldn't fire because it was broken.... so they had to "fix it" ? But since it was fixed... that means he was guilty? Wouldn't it be correct to say that its not the same gun because they had to replace parts to make it work?

[@sid1gen]

You'd be amazed what the prosecution/police-sheriff teams can get away with when they want to go after someone. They push the envelope; judges allow it; they push it again; judges allow it; push it again; judges stop it... Now they know the limits of envelop pushing "for the time being" in such a case. Later, in another county or another state, other prosecutors and police will push their envelope based on this case, and a judge will allow it sooner or later. That's how you create precedent. How else do you think we went from "Our Rights under Miranda" to the police being allowed to interrogate you for hours without having arrested you until you "confess" or give them something they can use and your information IS ADMITTED by the courts because you were DETAINED, NOT UNDER ARREST. Where is "detainment" in Miranda? Nowhere, but cops and prosecutors tired of Miranda protections started to push the envelope until sympathetic judges here, there, gave them the go-ahead. Eventually, a very sympathetic Supreme Court, when Scalia was alive, gave us "detention:" you can be held, not under arrest, and questioned, no bathroom breaks, no food, no sleep, no water, for hours on end. Whatever you say is not covered by Miranda because you were never under arrest, you were just detained.

[@JoshuaYoung2]

Fact Check - Correction. Alec Baldwin was ONE of the producers. When an actor is a producer or one of the producers or even the exec. it's 90% of the time "in name." They do it so they have creative control and the money, but the actual producing is done by a fleet of other producers both on and off set. This is one thing very under-reported online and in the news. Also I've been a part of many, many Hollywood productions, and the safety training varies wildly. What she said about how things are always done or should be done...nope. Half of it only happens half the time. It's not realistic to the reality.

[@blakekaveny]

You are correct. But also the judge didn’t allow him being a producer to be out into evidence she ruled that it wasn’t relevant

[@billc5433]

I've worked in television for over 15 years, and I still barely understand what a producer does, but a lot of people need to understand that it can be more than one thing. Baldwin, as you said was more so in name and money. He wasn't the one with a giant calendar checking to see that everyone was making deadlines or in the field gathering stock footage.

[@broodjejonko]

Interesting😮 I never knew this. Thanks for giving more insight

[@lhfirex]

Yeah, lots of people working on shows who have the money to produce part of it, do it for guild credits and the like. Basically resume padding more than actually being a producer.

[@mykeljmoney]

@@blakekavenyI agreed with her. I don’t think him being a producer is relevant for determining he negligently pulled the and/or aimed it at people. However, I do think him being a producer would have been relevant during the sentencing phase after a conviction.

[@Nono-hk3is]

17:55 "As a Prosecutor, you are not there as an agent, you are there to present the facts and present the evidence". Any District Attorney office that doesn't practice the above has no business claiming it represents the cause of Justice.

[@joeblog2672]

I always have a laugh and think about cases like this one when I watch in movies / tv where a cop or prosecutor tells a uncooperative suspect that they have nothing to worry about if they have nothing to hide. Malicious intent or not, those appropriate prosecutors and law enforcement must answer to justice in this case. If they don't, there won't be anyone left to answer for this tragedy!

[@shadowdante1102]

One thing no one points out, baldwin was going to use that gun in filming and would have been shooting at fellow actors. No matter what, that day was going to end with someone shot and or dead. Yes he mishandled the gun, but the person who put the live rounds in, in my opinion, bears the weight of the crime.

[@philopharynx7910]

Under the normal handling rules on set, after the rehearsal, the armorer would collect it, unload it and store it safely until they prepared for shooting. But as, we've seen, they weren't following the rules.

[@stargazer7644]

No one points it out because it isn't true. The gun was loaded with dummies as called for in this scene. Dummies are not blanks. You don't fire dummies in scenes, you fire blanks. Dummies look like live rounds but are inert - they can't fire. Blanks don't look like live rounds but can fire. You use dummies when you film the front of a gun and need to see the tips of the bullets in the revolver's cylinder. You use blanks (which have no bullets) which explode burning powder out of the barrel of the gun when you actually shoot it in a scene.

[@tjroelsma]

@@philopharynx7910 Agreed, and I doubt that the armorer will get completely off the hook even though the prosecutor messed with the evidence, because it is clear that she acted unprofessionally in her duty to unload, load and check each gun every time it was handled. The statements that she and others also fired live rounds at the set after a day of shooting also show a lack of adherence to the rules by the armorer. A reduced sentence would be in order though, because who knows what other evidence hasn't been admitted that might have worked to her advantage. All the evidence in this case has been tainted, because almost everyone collecting and handling the evidence, acted really unprofessionally.

[@jubal6654]

​@@philopharynx7910 you saying it normal to do rehearsal with an actual live gun?

[@themanwithoutaplan9389]

@@jubal6654 no, they are saying it’s normal protocol for the armorer to ensure the gun doesn’t have live ammunition. Also it’s normal to point guns loaded with blanks at people on a set, what’s abnormal is the gun has actual bullets in it. There isn’t such thing as a “live gun” only live ammunition, prop guns are real gun as loaded with fake or real ammunition depending on what’s needed and it’s the armorers job to make sure that no one takes a slug to the face.

[@ignitionfrn2223]

2:20 - Chapter 1 - 3 strikes & you're out 3:10 - Chapter 2 - Strike 1 ; retroactive application of the law 4:00 - Chapter 3 - Strike 2 ; destruction of the revolver 4:55 - Chapter 4 - Strike 3 ; the brady violation 14:35 - Chapter 5 - What's the law say ? 23:00 - Back to devin 23:30 - Conclusion

[@thekydragon]

Why is Devin even in the thumbnail if he's in this video for less than a minute (taking out the sponsor read)?

[@evertime123]

​@@thekydragon Face of the channel People know him so they click

[@John-ke2jm]

I'm willing to bet this level of incompetence is much more common then anyone would imagine and we only get to hear about this since it's such a famous case.

[@elfpi55-bigB0O85]

the prison system is based on constitutionally approved slave labour from overprosecuting black people for nonviolent crimes. this level of incompetence is the standard, and it being stopped is the exception. the real legal system is this exact circus except the judge and ethics people agreeswith what the prosecution is doing so nobody is around to stop it.

[@sid1gen]

Unfortunately, based on my experience, you would be correct

[@dionh70]

If only it were mere incompetence, which would already be bad enough, but this was gleeful and malicious misconduct that inarguably rises to a criminal level.

[@michaelwong9411]

Deliberately filing the evidence under the wrong case number to make sure it wouldn't be attached to the case is more than incompetence. It's willful misconduct, and in a fair world, someone would go to jail for this.

[@godrickstockwell1505]

Yep. Considering how comfortable the police officer was following an unlawful order shows me it wasn't abnormal

[@johnglielmi6428]

What's really even more disgusting is: Prosecutor: "We fixed the broken gun then determined you had to pull the trigger for it to go off." Isn't tampering with evidence a CRIME, in this country?

[@WhatEvenIsAGoodName]

Yes, absolutely and undeniably. Once they broke the gun it should have been tossed as evidence, and the fact of whether Baldwin actually pulled the trigger is irrelevant considering the role of an Armorer on set. Not only did the prosecution falsify evidence, they did so in a way that was never going to win them their case

[@stargazer7644]

They were testing the evidence in a crime lab, Einstein. Evidence is destroyed in crime labs routinely.

[@musclestruts5032]

Sadly the attitude is when the prosecution does it, it's not a crime. Just like how withholding evidence exonerating someone isn't considered lying by omission.

[@balfocu7945]

Yeah, seems like common sense to me. You have to pull the trigger for a gun to fire. The FBI broke the gun testing all the ridiculous exceptions to the obvious cause, like striking the gun with a mallet with the hammer pulled back, from several directions. It was functioning normally when they received it. There is something disgusting about this case, you are right about that part.

[@NoriMori1992]

It's nice to see a prosecutor and a judge who have some honour. I wish all defendants could be so lucky. Too many have been wrongly convicted because the judge ignored far worse misconduct than this.

[@davegold]

Yes it's great to see that one of the prosecutors had sufficient integrity to resign from the case.

[@namelessguy199]

This is especially relevant with the shit show involving trump appointed judges in federal courts.

[@3baxcb]

The Thin Blue Line documentary comes to mind.

[@FierceZs1]

@@namelessguy199 That literally has no relevance at all. What's wrong with you kids needing to mention Trump everywhere?

[@negrevallsette2980]

@FierceZs1 what do you expect , they all want their favourite god king to be immune from liabilty so he can piss on their brain

[@rubenp8320]

I had a very not so nice felony case against me in Texas, and it was dismissed. Boy I cried just like him, it felt like taking weight off my body.

[@solitarelee6200]

Dude I almost cried in court when I had a class 3 misdemeanor charge revoked as a teen. I can't even imagine the relief when it gets up to felony charges...

[@sid1gen]

I've worked in the California justice system (not an attorney) for 20 years. I started, literally, as a law and order, card-carrying Republican. What I saw, what I heard, made me, in less than five years, into the liberal Democrat, mostly pro-defense man I am today. I am happy for you, rubenp8320. I do not presume that we share the politics: to each their own. But I have witnessed tears of joy in courtrooms and it's always uplifting.

[@Wasteland88]

​​@@sid1genThere isn't any situation that I could possibly go through or witness that would cause me to become a Liberal Democrat, that's for sure. Especially when people in that cesspool of a state look up to the likes of California's finest jokers in Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsome, and Nancy Pelosi, just to name a few. Same with some of the jokers on the right as well. It's amazing how people will blindly follow one side or the other as if they do no wrong. The two party system will crumble this country eventually.

[@sid1gen]

@@Wasteland88 I've met plenty of people like you in my work. I avoid them because they are quite toxic. As for your opinion of the state, plenty share it, and come from places where child marriage is legal, for example.

[@rubenp8320]

@@sid1gen absolutely, I think realizing you made a big massive mistake is enough to humble some people. I was honestly fortunate. AA with deadly weapon in Texas is kinda silly, but I own it just the same. Much love, can’t get mad at those whose job it is to hold people accountable. It’s hard and I hope it worked out for ya!

[@witchy90210]

.................. How is someone supposed to know that because someone else is inexperienced and new to a job, that that should let you know that the gun they are giving you might be loaded with real ammunition. Youd assume if someone is hired for something that they have experience enough to do the job safely.

[@killroy713]

Because you ALWAYS assume a gun is loaded..... ALWAYS.

[@tomservo5007]

@@killroy713 and after picking up your car from the shop, do you drive around assuming the brakes were cut?

[@witchy90210]

@@killroy713 That is proper gun safety yes. However, this is a specific case where the assumption would be that if it were loaded that it would not be loaded with REAL bullets. There is an additional level of knowledge where one would have an assumption of something else. There is another reasonable belief of what the facts should be. Its like saying that you are responsible for lying because you said something someone you trust told you something that was a lie, but you didnt know it was a lie at the time.

[@AdamGoodtime247]

@@tomservo5007 That's a pretty terrible analogy. Cars aren't designed specifically to kill people. Guns are a weapon, and to use them as a toy/prop requires confirming that they have been rendered fully harmless beforehand.

[@cyberpunk2453]

@@tomservo5007 No, but you do give the car a once over to make sure there's nothing out of place. You can check a revolver cylinder and go "oh, that's a bullet in that case" faster than you can walk around a car.

[@richeybaumann1755]

Brady and Giglio aren't suggestions - they're Supreme Court mandate. The fact that the prosecution seemed unconcerned about that fact is... concerning.

[@dontmisunderstand6041]

To be fair, Supreme Court mandate at this point is concerning in itself.

[@stargazer7644]

5:27 This was not Reed's first job as armorer. Before "Rust" she was armorer on "The Old Way", and was assistant to the armorer on "Murder at Yellowstone City" before that.

[@TuberoseKisser]

Still not experienced, she did 2 main gigs and then an assistant.

[@stargazer7644]

@@TuberoseKisser So exactly when do you become "experienced"? Two main gigs is experience. Her father was her teacher and he was an armorer for over 50 years. If you shouldn't be in charge until you have experience, and being in charge doesn't give you experience, then how exactly do you ever GET experience? I think she was experienced. The problem was she didn't have the right temperament for the job and wasn't good at it.

[@LegendStormcrow]

Still green and WAY overworked. Didn't help that the producer also refused training and was known for his explosive anger.

[@stargazer7644]

@@LegendStormcrow You really need to understand Baldwin wasn't "THE" producer. Baldwin was one of 8 producers with 6 production companies on this film. His production responsibilities were limited to creative choices. Rust was a very small, low budget film. How many armorers does it take to keep up with one camera crew on a western?

[@imcubanb2870]

Typically the difference between a newbie and a pro is about 1000 hours of training, give or take.

[@tannerjones1230]

I really think Spencer's delivery in the videos have improved a lot! Really love that he's finding his voice! Keep up the great work!

[@ypw510]

He's a Marine. I'm thinking that's not his Marine voice. "From now on, you will speak only when spoken to, and the first and last words out of your filthy sewers will be 'Sir!' Do you maggots understand that?"

[@Bbeaucha88]

Prosecutor Johnson is the kind of lawyer gives me the faith that there are good lawyers in the world. Objectivity, professionalism, and integrity.

[@MrLurch133]

If this were true several of trumps cases would have been dismissed.

[@znail4675]

@@MrLurch133 You got it backwards. If Trump was treated like anyone else so would he be in Jail.

[@MrLurch133]

@znail4675 well he has the funding to actually fight back is main difference. He is treated worse legally. 2 sham impeachments one of which was used to spy on his campaign. Sexual assault fanfic under metoo# law . Lol senator from dems actually complained about when used against himself for bill he signed saying it was unconstitutional. False estimates of fraud for marlago no victim. Allowing a perjury convict to be core of non disclosure agreement. Turning 2 misdemeanors into a pick your crime for jury ... couldn't even label the crime in court to defend. Classified docs mishandled chain of bcustody and false appointment. Target prosecutors that campaigned on going after him default bias. As in case of judge that had daughter fundraising for opposition dems on his conviction. Do You claim Clarence Tomas was conflicted but not him? Media bias and blinders on biden's health. Hunter laptop shocking was real. The argument of Trump walking slowly vs 7+ falls of biden

[@MrLurch133]

@znail4675 Impeachment based on false info. Spying on campaign Bias prosecutors that ran on target Judge daughter fundraising off conviction. Classified docs chain of custody issue. Sex fanfic for metoo. Even writer of law backfired and condemned. Non disclosure /perjury witness. Optional crime not disclosed to Def and presented to jury. That's just for starters

[@MrLurch133]

@znail4675 apparently mods are hiding a valid response so I'm unsubscribing

[@richeybaumann1755]

Major credit to prosecutor Johnson. Her ethical and moral standards go well above and beyond any belief in the veracity of the case. She didn't just resign and agree to stay quiet, she resigned and immediately blew the whistle on how bad things were

[@dojelnotmyrealname4018]

No. Her ethical standards are average. She recused herself and didn't inform anyone else of the misconduct. She was willing to let the misconduct continue.

[@vaiapatta8313]

@@dojelnotmyrealname4018 I thought the judge already knew?

[@johndoe1059]

So how often does this happen to people that don’t have millions of dollars to pay for proper due process

[@retched]

This wasn't a case of spending millions... it's enough to rattle the cage and get the case tossed out.

[@Dadofer1970]

All the time. The armorer was convicted, and the assistant director accepted a plea.

[@dionh70]

Every goddamn day, which should sicken and enrage you.

[@emisor9272]

The argument that "Weapons on set should be treated as real and loaded" except if he had been given the OK, even if the incident didn't happen, he could've killed someone during shooting, when he IS supposed to hold the gun trigger. The other argument that "Since the armorer was a greenhorn, he shouldn't have trusted her" except she's paid to know more about guns than the actors. If the actors are going to double check her, what's the point in hiring her?

[@tornadoawe]

I've heard that the proper process is for a firearm to be checked by the armorer and then an assistant, being being handed to the actor. So it would actually be a triple-check for every firearm if they didn't trust her.

[@stargazer7644]

The gun was loaded with dummies, as was called for in that scene. You can't shoot dummies. If he was in a scene where he was supposed to fire the gun, it would be loaded with blanks which are visually different and cannot be confused with live rounds.

[@houseofaction]

per SAG rules actors are not allowed to double check for the armorer

[@XandateOfHeaven]

The argument that you have committed a crime by not treating the gun as real and loaded is absurd, and has never been legal or industry standard. If you have been given assurances by the armorer that it is safe to do so, you are allowed to point a prop gun at someone.

[@stargazer7644]

@@XandateOfHeaven Not treating the gun as real and loaded is failing to act with due care and is negligence. You're right that that alone is not a crime. But when someone dies as a result of that negligence, you've now met the requirements of involuntary manslaughter. And that is a crime. And that's what he was charged with. According to SAG gun safety rules, you must treat every firearm as loaded and deadly. You are NEVER allowed to point it at someone. You seem to think you can tell exactly where an actor is pointing a weapon in a movie gunfight. You can't.

[@autumnberend828]

> They don't point guns at people On set, they do, because they're blanks. Unless you have live rounds, you shouldn't have to worry. And, yes, they absolutely DO point it at other actors when filming... because they're not loaded with live ammo. Rare exceptions happen, that's how Bruce Lee's son died, too.

[@neoqwerty]

They don't because a freak accident like Brandon Lee's is always possible. The firearms safety specialist/armorer's whole job is to not only make sure the guns are safe, but to also train the actors to shoot "off the axis" or "cheat" the shot (to aim to the *side* of their felow actors or stuntpeople). It was the standard way back in 1993 (the set of The Crow was running out of budget and the qualified armorer was the one whose job was cut when it would have been his job to stop Michael Messer from aiming at Brandon). It's still the standard today. If they DO aim right at actors, it's solid-frame replicas, rubber guns, or very expensive "non-guns" that can produce flashes but are otherwise completely harmless.

[@autumnberend828]

@@neoqwerty That's simply because of unrealistic paranoia. What makes the gun a killing machine is the bullet without it, you won't have that issue. The armourer is supposed to make sure that's how it is. If they mess up, maybe they shouldn't have been the armourer.

[@RagnellAvalon]

To clarify, the weapon involved in the death of Brandon Lee was actually loaded with a blank, but it had an object stuffed in the barrel by someone and that object effectively became a bullet when the weapon discharged.

[@peter65zzfdfh]

@@autumnberend828multiple fatalities have occurred with blanks. While the chance and fatal range is dramatically reduced they can still do serious damage at very close ranges or if mis manufactured. Unless the shot absolutely requires it you do not point any gun at anyone, and certainly not a person behind a camera that could be remotely operated for risky shots. In any industry safety is all about having multiple different things that need to go wrong to have an injury, you don’t unnecessarily remove a safety precaution because the other precautions *should* be enough.

[@ypw510]

@@RagnellAvalon That's not what happened on the set of The Crow. Someone on set made improvised dummy rounds out of real ammo, but didn't remove the primer. When it was dry fired, the explosion from the primer was enough to shoot a bullet into the barrel. Then a later scene was where blanks would be fired and nobody checked the barrel for any obstruction. The force of the blank then shot out the bullet.

[@chrisdray5325]

It is totally ridiculous that they sincerely posited that Baldwin shouldn't have trusted the armorer. That's why you have the armorer on set. When you are handed a gun and told it's state by the armorer, it would be potentially dangerous to not trust her. Your life, as well as the rest of the cast and crew, is in the hands of the experts. Making sure the gun was safe and that there weren't any live rounds on set was her obligation, not his.

[@Patrick-857]

It sounds like it wasn't her fault either. The weapon was taken while she wasn't there apparently.

[@imcubanb2870]

The one who is wielding the weapon is still responsible for it, even if it was an accident. The armorer is also responsible, but if you are given a gun, even if you are told it is safe, always examine it and check the rounds visually. I'm suprised that someone who has been acting for so long and has also used weapons on set before wouldn't know this ahead of time.

[@ChristianNeihart]

​@@imcubanb2870maybe it was complacency. Maybe it was one of those days where a bad thing happens despite doing everything you're supposed to.

[@wildfire9280]

0:50 Withholding ammunition evidence… What did they think this was, Ace Attorney?

[@burp2019]

this entire case would fit right in

[@MysteriousStranger50]

Blame gumshoe

[@burp2019]

@@MysteriousStranger50 gumshoe was never this incompetent

[@tournamentmaster2000]

@@burp2019 Right? it would be Von Karma, which is actually quite fitting

[@patricktsao9630]

@@MysteriousStranger50 "Oh yeah! I forgot about that, pal! That did happen, didn't it? ... ...urk!"

[@rotinhellorg]

I don't know why it's so hard to understand that guns DO get pointed at people on film sets. Every time you see a gun wielder point a gun at camera (or slightly off camera) someone is behind that, and probably multiple people.

[@SirPhilMcCrackinVonBeggington]

Be that as it may, people usualy don't get killed. So, you kill someone and you need to face criminal charges. How do you not understand that?

[@raeoverhere923]

We have robots that can move cameras now, no one has to be in front of a gun _ever_ on a film set, especially not a real gun instead of a prop.

[@binaryblade2]

@@SirPhilMcCrackinVonBeggington and the error lies with the person who broke the established set rules... the armorer who is in prison.

[@binaryblade2]

@@raeoverhere923 cinematography is an art. It's more than just moving the camera, it's drawing focus, aligning the shot. Sometimes that can be pre programmed, sometimes you have to adapt to the acting.

[@rotinhellorg]

@@SirPhilMcCrackinVonBeggington Obviously someone needs to be held responsible. First, the person who placed a live bullet on set. Second, the person whose jog it is to ensure there are no live rounds in the gun. Third, the person who transports that gun and tells the actor the gun has been checked and is safe to use. All those people have actual negligence.

[@Ruud_Brouwer]

I predict that this will produce no conspiracy theories at all

[@aaronmontgomery2055]

Well if they knew how incompetent people from New Mexico were it wouldn't be a surprise.

[@maverickmissile801]

Fr 😂😢

[@arreca09]

funny, because It was right wingers the ones conspiring against Baldwin, just because he made fun of their daddy Trump

[@Gamma0_0]

"Baldwin gate" - Someone who was told to say it

[@Aurorajunior7321]

Rust-19 vaccine

[@ESPHMacD]

You know what's kind of crazy about this whole issue, if Poppel hadn't lied on the stand making it material to have to those rounds to impeach her then they might have had a harder time arguing materiality. But then she lied, indicated a possibility there was hidden evidence (which the defense probably knew was being hidden from them since they asked about it), but once she lied and then brought them into court when asked, they immediately became relevant as impeachment evidence, which basically guarantees a Brady violation. Just how hard is it to do your job properly without stomping on the rights afforded those whom you prosecute. You don't want your cases overturned, right? You should want your t's crossed and i's dotted to make sure you don't get this outcome, or get turned over on appeal for something you did. Geez.

[@blakekaveny]

Exactly and she was pissed about having to even testify about it. Also the way she snapped at his defense attorney because she didn’t like the way he was addressing her.

[@Christopher_Gibbons]

The whole thing was ridiculous from the start. They were basically asserting that everyone has to be better educated than trained professionals and is expected to know when the instructions of a trained expert are invalid.

[@blackvial]

With prejudice? Holy hell did the prosecutor screw up

[@randomnobody8770]

The prosecutors office might get sanctioned, and its already announced they're getting sued. Its already part of the record that their hiding of evidence was malicious. Yikes!

[@no-cv4dx]

Jeopardy attached. Judge didn't really have a choice.

[@scottmartin9041]

@@no-cv4dx The prosecutor who exclude evidence should be fired and not allowed to work as a prosecutor again

[@jonathonpolk3592]

Yeah, once jeopardy attaches, the only way you get around it is if a mistrial can be made for reasons other than prosecutorial misconduct. Given the egregious and prejudicial nature of the prosecutors mistakes, that would be a difficult call to make. So although judges almost never make such decisions due to double jeopardy issues, in this case it was probably warranted.

[@KameeGaming]

@@no-cv4dxdoes that mean Baldwin cant be brought to trial again on this?

[@nickwolfe6684]

This woman is a great prosecutor. I wish more were like her. She is so right, you're not an advocate you're there to present facts and give clarification of how those facts are relevant to the case.

[@Caelinus]

It also was a smart move for her career. I imagine that if I was in her position, and suddenly realized that my co-counsel was tying a weight around my ankle and about to push me into the ocean, I would also dip out immediately. She did a good job. I disagree with the States theory of the case, but it is an *arguable* position. Hiding evidence, on the other hand, is not. Being party to that, even if you were not the one to actually do it, is unethical in the extreme. She really had no other option but to either convince them to dismiss, or GTFO before the hammer came down.

[@agbook2007]

@@Caelinus, well said. 👍

[@Scorch428]

Somewhere along the line, the incentive to win cases became so great, prosecutors resorted to cheating to win at all costs.

[@ypw510]

She was hired for this case as a special prosecutor. She's still a defense attorney.

[@curtisbme]

@6:17 - Very weird that you don't point a gun at another actor and pull the trigger on a movie set given the thousands of times we've all seen exactly that happen in movies. Let alone the amount of times we see them being fired at the camera.

[@PetProjects2011]

It might be a rule that was only implemented recently.

[@junibug6790]

He probably had the same reaction everyone else did: "I can't believe the prosecutor did something that stupid."

[@airplanes_aren.t_real]

Deja vu

[@3baxcb]

Stupidity can be dealt with. Sadly, I believe it was the choice of the prosecution when they should know that decision was wrong.

[@andrewscott9610]

Bravo to the judge, this is the way that we can restore faith in our legal system. Bravo to the prosecutor for dropping off the case!!! 😊

[@mcdrums87]

My big takeaway from the prosecution's screw up is that basically NO ONE who would/could have been responsible for a Halyna Hutchins's death is going to have criminal consequences now. (Civil consequences, maybe.) They HAD convicted the armorer, but her conviction is also tainted now, which is why her lawyers (rightfully) filed an appeal immediately. Personally, I do think the armorer bears responsibility. I haven't ever been on set (let alone one with firearms), but I have to assume that all the safety precautions--and even the requirement for an armorer--are in place so actors can "break" normal firearm safety rules in pursuit of a shot. This is a case where something (or several things) in the chain broke, and the person who was primarily responsible for those safety procedures bears responsibility. This really does seem like a case where the sheriff and prosecution wanted to prosecute Alec Baldwin either because he is famous, or because of his political views (and criticisms of a certain politician). My secondary takeaway is more of a question: How often do they do this to people without "fancy" lawyers?

[@retched]

The convicted also have a chance to appeal their decisions too if they felt the evidence was shit. They also can demand a new trial if they felt they weren't provided a sufficient defense by way of public defender. So long as they do NOT agree with the charges, they can pursue an appeal. If they accept a settlement of any kind... they're screwed.

[@daedalron]

There were a lot of people with part of responsibility in that accident. They cut corners everywhere to shoot their movie faster and for cheaper, security was not in anyone's mind... - The production cut corners completely, hiring an inexperienced armorer part-time for a job that would have required 2 experienced full-time armorers. They also asked the propmaster to handle guns (reloading for example), when the woman knew nothing about guns and caused a negligent discharge because of it. - The propmaster for having accepted to be considered a part-time armorer assistant, when she knew nothing about guns. The girl thought you need to pull the trigger when cocking the gun to load it... No surprise she had a negligent discharge... She also admitted to throwing away dummy rounds regularly, when the production didn't have enough of them (which might have caused live rounds to be brought to use as prop, to not slow down production) - The 1st Assistant director, for not looking during the gun security check, and calling the gun "cold" when it was loaded with rounds. - Alec Baldwin for rushing production, being totally irresponsible with guns (pointing at people with it, having his finger on the trigger, shooting after scene ended, ...), and pushing the armorer to prepare other guns for the next scene instead of staying to look at the current scene (what the armorer was doing during the fatal shooting). It is almost certain that the gun went off because he was (likely not knowingly) pulling the sensitive trigger while trying to cock the hammer. - The armorer for having accepted a job she was way too inexperienced to do, for not pushing back against the production rushing her, for not checking dummy rounds before loading them, for having loaded a live round into the gun - And lasty Halyna Hutchins herself, for directing Alec Baldwin during that reherseal to point the gun into that direction, thinking only about how it would look on film and not thinking for a second about security rules. She literally told Baldwin to point the gun at her, and she died because of it...

[@stargazer7644]

How is her conviction tainted? This evidence was presented to Hannah's defence attorneys and they chose to ignore it because it was prejudicial to her case.

[@annamelvina216]

​@@daedalron I wish there were more people with the facts like you in the comments section. Honorable mention to Seth Kenney, who "trained" both Sara the propmaster and Hannah the armorer on guns, and who was the production's main supplier for, as he put it, "blanks and dummies." Hated him when he was on the stand during Hannah's case...

[@neoqwerty]

@@annamelvina216 That whole case was a gigantic shitshow that felt like it was DETERMINED to cause a second The Crow, when I started reading about it to see what was going on and argue with all the people in the comments who act like actors point guns at each other all the time no big deal. I came back out with a whole grocery list of incompetence and grievances and didn't even go in as deep as daedalron.

[@MitchellTF]

"So, should you have stayed?" "...Do you stay in the building when you know a bomb is going to go off in 5 minutes?"

[@TruthNerds]

I know that the captain is supposed to leave the burning ship last, but I figure it's a bit different for attorneys …

[@MitchellTF]

@@TruthNerds She was also NOT THE CAPTAIN. She wasn't even the first mate.

[@StrongMed]

If prosecutors and the law enforcement apparatus are this incompetent, and frankly malevolent, during such a high-profile case, it's frightening to imagine the scrutiny behind the scenes on routine cases involving average people.

[@amrabilalovic9651]

Very true. It's clear they were acting in bad faith.

[@Novastar.SaberCombat]

Actor of 30+ years here. Everyone should reference the Brandon Lee situation on the set of "The Crow". After that disaster, a LOT of new rules and regulations were set in place. On the set of "Rust", neither the armorer (an embarrassingly unprofessional, under-trained, nepotistic post-teen), nor the primary producer, nor the DIRECTOR (I'M SORRY) were taking things seriously. Baldwin was essentially "just an actor" on Hutchinson's project. YES, SURE... he had clout, coin, influence, etc. But he wasn't the Armorer, he wasn't Props MNG, he wasn't the Director, and he sure as hell wasn't tasked with checking for ACTUAL BULLETS (!!!) in a prop gun which was on the set of a film. Under no circumstances should an actual bullet EVER be permitted on the set of a film. As in none and never. NO EXCEPTIONS, no excuses, no apologies to the person who permitted this. And may *they* rot in h€||.

[@stargazer7644]

There was no nepotism here. Hannah's step-father was not in any way employed by rust. When your dad puts in a good word to the manager of McDonalds to get you a job, that isn't nepotism. If your dad is the CEO of McDonalds, THAT's nepotism.

[@neoqwerty]

You forgot that apparently the assistant producer himself had a habit of rushing shoots through when the armorer was doing prop duties and he wasn't trained in firearms safety. Everyone except Baldwin is responsible in this case, really. (Yes, even the cinematographer, who told Baldwin to point the gun at her torso according to reports by crewmembers, while she was teaching Baldwin to cheat the shot so he wouldn't point directly at the camera, during rehearsal, so he was TOLD to disregard gun safety and the armorer should have been there to nix that one.)

[@houseofaction]

@@stargazer7644 yes that is by definition nepotism the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives, friends, or associates, especially by giving them jobs.

[@stargazer7644]

@@houseofaction How exactly can her step-father "give her a job" when he is in no way part of the Rust production?

[@Whitecroc]

He should not have been playing around with the gun, either. Both he and the armorer failed in their duties.

[@Ocrilat]

Objection: (edit) Alec Baldwin was not 'the producer' for Rust. He was 'a producer'...a very different thing. Calling him 'the producer' is a factual error. Thanks igorschmidlapp6987 for finding my stupid typo.

[@airplanes_aren.t_real]

By that logic all the producers should have been on trial right?

[@blakekaveny]

Him being a producer wasn’t in evidence. The judge said it wasn’t relevant

[@retched]

@@blakekaveny I actually agree with that. So many people wanted to make that THE case.

[@Ocrilat]

@@blakekaveny He also was not 'THE producer' anyway...and the prosecution (and this video) calling him THE producer is purposefully misleading. Baldwin was a producer...an honorary title given to a movie star for signing onto a project early, and letting their name attract other actors and investment. They want to call him THE producer so they can pretend he had something to do with running the film. Baldwin had no production responsibilities on the set of Rust. The lesson here is, when a prosecutor gets caught lying about a case...then they almost certainly have a weak case. The prosecutors were caught lying from day one.

[@b1laxson]

Id like to see more on the producer and who was assigned to what especially after seeing the Rust making film of Alec demanding everyone go faster during another scene's reset. Her certainly appeared to have authority influencing the conduct of others.

[@craigbenz4835]

In one of the biggest cases in our lifetime the prosecution pulls a Brady violation. Were they thinking, "Maybe we can get away with it this time?"

[@ycplum7062]

"“A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.”" American Bar Association, Rule 3.8: Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor

[@charlesfaure1189]

And violated every day.

[@diedampfbrasse98]

@@charlesfaure1189 every day ... with the approval of the masses, as evidenced by the ignorance and continueing inaction even by those aware ... the American people have only themself to blame for the broken and corrupted systems

[@RoonMian]

@@charlesfaure1189 Completely at odds with how in practice trials in US courts are completely adversarial. And completely out of sync with the incentives in a system were prosecutors are trying to get reelected.

[@BogeyTheBear]

In other words, a prosecutor has to be a champion of the _truth,_ and not simply their side of the argument.

[@elfpi55-bigB0O85]

when do we get to question and change the law, then?

[@blakekaveny]

I was wondering if you’d do a video on this. The thing is I hope this draws people attention to this. This happens all the time but prosecutors get away with it all the time. If it can happen to a major celebrity it can happen to you as well. So I hope this makes people more aware.

[@broughtonparkade5381]

I’ve said it a hundred times since the incident. The talent is not responsible for props, the stage manager and the armorer are responsible for props. And, whomever brought live ammunition to a movie shoot.

[@OdinBarenjagerschlos]

@@broughtonparkade5381 That may be the rules for props but rules for guns overrule them. It is not possible for the person who handed the weapons to someone else (sometimes dozens at a time) to account for every cylinder the entire time she isn't holding it. We, and the armorer, will never be 100% sure when that live round got in the cylinder. Nor when and where it crossed the imaginary line into a movie shoot. If you can't be expected to check and load/reload each round yourself and accept the responsibility for what happens via a weapon under your control, then you are effectively a child in the gun sphere of things, nobody should ever hand you a gun and walk away, and you shouldn't be getting roles that require it.

[@gnosticnight]

And the producers are responsible for hiring competent "experts" rather than clowns, and not rushing production to save money by circumventing long-standing safety protocols and giving the armorer multiple jobs. Alec better get the checkbook out before the case reaches civil court. But it's NM, so anything is possible.

[@2leftfield]

@@OdinBarenjagerschlos It is the armorer's job to account for all guns and ammunition on the set. That is why they are hired. As a matter of course, any gun used on set by actors should not be used by anyone else for any other purpose. I understand from news accounts that some of the weapons used on the set of Rust were taken off set and used for target practice with real ammunition. This should have been forbidden for the run of the production. Further, if there is ANY doubt that this protocol has not been followed, the armorer should personally inspect the weapons involved to ensure that they are safe to use before allowing anyone else to touch them. This was not done, and the result was tragic.

[@OdinBarenjagerschlos]

@@2leftfield Facts not in evidence. Alternatively, she shook 6 dummy rounds the last time she handed Baldwin the gun. Or alternatively, she did it half-assed but there were indeed 6 dummies, then someone else -- we'll never know -- replaced one. Down to possibly some nameless grip accidentally swung out the cylinder, rounds fell out and they lost one and found one to replace it. We'll never know, and only an attentive Baldwin could even know for sure. She simply cannot physically be responsible to the extent required. Only the person it was issued to can, and only if they can and do keep it on them or re-check every round when they haven't.

[@XandateOfHeaven]

​@@OdinBarenjagerschlos It absolutely is reasonable for the armorer to be responsible for every round in a prop gun. That's their entire job.

[@ED-es2qv]

That lying prosecutor got on TV and said the other prosecutor resigned for personal reasons, not in protest of the prosecution plans. She knew it was a lie, but she chose to say it anyway to make herself look good. She's lied in a number of ways since then. She deserves to go to jail for perjury, violation of rights, Falsifying documents, etc. She's a bigger criminal than most of the people she prosecuted, and she's worse because she's using the justice system to commit crimes, and putting every guilty verdict into more question than it was before. She's damaged her profession and her career, and so far she's just doubling down by adding lies to cover the lies.

[@JoeyYoungg]

Think they’re gonna make a movie about this trial? If they do they should probably double check the ammo

[@ronaldeliascorderocalles]

Its Hollywood... probably in the next 5 years

[@lmcfigs4874]

They should do it like the ending of blazing saddles, where they break the fourth wall and it turns into a courtroom drama.

[@Northex23]

Tropic Thunder 2, best documentary of a real fake real cowboymovie ever

[@Ceeewolf]

Who is going to play Alec Baldwin?

[@teelo12000]

The name could be based around corrosion off the materials that make up bullets, as a metaphor for the case corroding away.... They could call it... Rust.

[@ZappBranniglenn]

Big W for 'Fancy Attorneys'

[@yuvalne]

police and prosecution never learn. the only way for people to still have faith in the criminal justice system is for them to play nice. this was the right decision. hopefully they now learn from it.

[@stargazer7644]

Hopefully they're now prosecuted for it. FTFY

[@Gamer3427]

As you said though, they never learn. Unfortunately the more time goes on, the less the legal system and people who are supposed to uphold the law actually care about doing so. It's far more likely for them to care about their own careers or biases, and ignore the facts. I know where I live, basically no one trusts the police, because time and time again has shown they can't be trusted. And based on what I've seen, the same holds true no matter where you live.

[@Real28]

I am so glad I watched to the end because the "it's ok to be a little fancy" was worth the wait 🤣

[@4RILDIGITAL]

It's sad to see such a high-profile case crumble due to prosecutorial missteps, but ultimately it sheds light on the importance of upholding ethical standards in the field of law.

[@imcubanb2870]

The prosecutors should be tried for misconduct, but the Baldwin case should be retried. The prosecutors negligence does not excuse what happened on set.

[@danielthecake8617]

He was directed to shoot with a gun loaded with "blanks" at the camera. How tf is that the actor's fault? If you want to blame him then you have to prove A. He knew how to check for blanks/live rounds B. He did not check it/ he didn't care it was live C. He pointed it at the cinematographer while not following orders.

[@lordinquisitorsec7532]

​@@imcubanb2870 It can't. Dismissed *with* prejudice. Can't be tried again.

[@Jasta85]

I could see an argument for prosecuting Baldwin as a producer and being partially responsible for the quality of people hired and the attitude towards safety on set. But charging him for using a gun that was handed to him on the set of an cowboy action movie never made any kind of sense, even without the prosecution kneecapping their entire case.

[@GothPaoki]

There's plenty of evidence from testimonies that people on set regularly used guns for funs and that is his responsibility since he was also the producer

[@Other_Robots]

Yeah exactly. I don’t think anybody was charged when Brandon Lee was similar shot on set due to negligence so i was confused why alec baldwin was being charged. Likely because he’s a big name who is somewhat controversial instead of just some guy who works on set

[@tatsuothefamiliar3801]

One of the rules of gun safety. "Treat every gun as if it's loaded" And if you intend to "play" with a live firearm, remember to clear it. This was mostly Baldwin's fault for being a dumbass.

[@thomasbecker9676]

People who are "producers" on projects often just give money and shoehorn a family member into a scene.

[@oBCHANo]

Even then he was probably 3-4 steps removed from hiring that armourer. The person that did hire her though surely isn't at fault either, when you hire a professional you expect them to be professional, and in this case the armourer is hired specifically to make this kind of thing their responsibility.

[@Unfortunately_Mickey]

A HUGE fumble from the prosecution because my opinion was that he'd get some sort of conviction, but it ABSOLUTELY should be thrown out. That was ridiculous conduct that can easily get innocent people thrown in prison. Shameful.

[@blackvial]

This was less of a fumble and more like malicious prosecutorial misconduct

[@SirPhilMcCrackinVonBeggington]

So a guilty guy gets to walk free, because this type of conduct "can" land "innocent" people in jail? Incredible reasoning you've got going on there.

[@jayjester4843]

@@blackvialI’m honestly wondering if Hollywood didn’t corrupt this case. I would be mores surprised to find out there hasn’t been money spilled by them to keep a prosecution from sticking against their industry.

[@jayjester4843]

@@SirPhilMcCrackinVonBeggington yes, because we cannot have a justice system behave this way.

[@PJSproductions97]

​@@SirPhilMcCrackinVonBeggington we've always preferred guilt men go free than innocent men go to jail. That's why "innocent until proven guilty" is so important.

[@TheUnsungVil]

Having Scowl Owl on the show is always a big plus - keep going!

[@ronishamay]

also how can you break the og gun destroying it and test with replacemnt parts? if you couldnt shoot the original and could with replacment parts it means absolutely nothing?

[@Pagemaster22193]

Exactly what I was thinking, you’re not working with the same variables.

[@jasonseymour4235]

With numerous studies showing Brady violations are common, being found in 10-12% of prosecutions, with other violations or procedural issues making up around 6%, it's pretty clear to me that prosecutors can not be trusted to make these determinations. It's important to note, these numbers will never be complete as a violation has to be discovered to be counted. If someone was successful, you may never know. Its also noteworthy, that people are rarely caught on their first transgression. With this, it is very safe to assume that 10% is the minimum rate of Brady violations. It's also worth pointing out, Brady violations rarely if ever end up being reviewed by the Bar, so prosecutors don't even get a slap on the wrist. With no personal punishment, our legal system essentially says, feel free to do this, at worst, the case will just be dismissed, at best you might get a financial bonus or even get elected to DA if the case is big enough. I don't know the answer, other than a neutral third party being present whenever anyone contacts prosecutors, maybe we call them Prosecutorial or Investigative Reporters, similar to Court Reporters. This would be expensive of course and the funds for such would be taken from the DAs office, since they would be the reason this position would even exist. Of course, to be neutral, this position would not be paid by the DAs office, just the funds stripped from the top of their budget to be paid out from another with bonuses for finding violations. Maybe with some oversight, things like this can actually become rare.

[@wanderingaceminecraftandmo8034]

Frankly anytime this case was brought up, I was on Baldwin's side. It was the armorer's job to make sure it was safe to bring on set, and the actors trusts the armorer to do their job. Bringing live ammunition on set in a gun was all the armorer's fault. The actor might ask if the gun is safe, but if the armorer fails to check the safety of the firearm, the actor might not know until it is too late.

[@stargazer7644]

You've forgotten the culpability of the 1st assistant director. He's responsible for overall safety on set and one of those jobs is observing that the armorer did their job correctly. He was also charged and was found guilty.

[@darkhorsedouglas4789]

Also that he did ask if it was safe for firing at camera. The armorer said "cold gun" before handing it to him. Actors aren't required to know how blanks are loaded. So long as it's a cold gun it isn't supposed to have live rounds in it, period. And as long as the actor confirms with the armorer what round is in the gun then that's the round that should be in the gun. It's definitely not Baldwin's fault the wrong round was put in the gun

[@neoqwerty]

@@darkhorsedouglas4789 Hell, it's not even his fault that he was aiming at the cinematographer, according to crewmembers' reports, she told Baldwin to aim at her torso as a reference point for where he should aim relative to the camera. Even if he WASN'T supposed to aim at anyone with the gun (he wasn't), the armorer wasn't on set to tell them "NO YOU DO NOT DO THAT. WTF." and the assistant producer didn't say it either (and he was the one who called the gun "cold"). So yeah, three failure points (four if you count "armorer didn't check gun correctly" and "armorer wasn't there to enforce gun safety" separately), none were Baldwin's. Poor guy was in the exact same situation as Michael Massee was: accidentally killed someone who was just as confident as him that the gun was safe, with a chain of failures (though in this case the set of Rust had a history of people getting hurt by the guns, rather than a specific prop being mishandled multiple times) from everyone around them.

[@stargazer7644]

@@darkhorsedouglas4789 The armorer doesn't call cold gun, the 1st assistant director does (and did). And blanks had nothing to do with this. The gun wasn't loaded with blanks, it was loaded with dummies.

[@JohnSmith-ef2rn]

I don't think they should have tried Baldwin, even if he did "pull the trigger". The man was on a movie set for crying out loud, given a gun he was told was "cold" by people who should have been doing their job. "Oh," the prosecutor says, "Baldwin should have known that the armorer was inexperienced and might put a live round in". That's a big stretch, and I think it's a fairly ridiculous thing to assume Baldwin should have done

[@ypw510]

The problem is that there are so many who are biased by what they were taught. Don’t point a gun at other people and always check the condition yourself. They can’t seem to get past the idea that it was a movie set where ostensible pros are there to determine if it’s loaded with blanks or dummies and film set guidelines are that actors don’t brass check firearms.

[@imcubanb2870]

It is always the responsibility of whoever is holding the weapon to inspect it. Just like it is the responsibility of a driver to make sure the car they will be driving is in safe driving condition.

[@vaiapatta8313]

@@imcubanb2870 how would the driver make sure the car is OK? Oh yeah - they would pay a professional to check it!

[@kimberlybrady6976]

There is so much wild legal crap happening these days, you need about 10 more 'associate legal commenters' to keep us with it. It's exhausting!

[@aelfgernon7729]

I like my lawyers like I like my ketchup: needlessly described as fancy.

[@randrew777]

The judge pointed out herself, while examining these Seth Kenny rounds after having stepped off the bench, which almost never happens, that they appeared similar to the dummy rounds from the set of rust.

[@BhaktiTalkPodcast]

I've been an active member of the I.A.T.S.E. Local 44 in the Prop Department for the past 25 years, with nearly 50,000 hours on a film set. The idea that Alec Baldwin is responsible for the firearm resulting in death is ridiculous. He's not. The First AD "cleared" the weapon, which he never should have even touched the weapon, and the "armorer" had live ammunition on set, which is beyond outrageous. Baldwin is, however, guilty and should be held liable as a producer of the film. As a producer, he is responsible for hiring an unqualified person for dangerous work and creating an unsafe environment.

[@TheFiddleFaddle]

How are we here? We are still a country that abides by "innocent until proven guilty." The burden of proof is on the prosecution. You cannot arbitrarily ignore procedure.

[@TheFiddleFaddle]

(Ostensibly abides by. Yes, I know there's plenty of cases of inappropriate presumption of guilt.)

[@zenthr]

Because of the security hyperfocused mentality behind 30% of the country flying "thin blue line" flags. That mentality inevitably incentivizes the idea that law and procedure needs to get out of the way of "stopping" criminals.

[@TheFiddleFaddle]

@@zenthr Corruption. You can just say corruption. Whatever the reason for being crooked, crooked is crooked.

[@DaveB-hg7el]

Unfortunately it seems that isn't always true. Here in Ohio we have a new law that prohibits the use of a cell phone while driving. If someone gets charged with a violation of the statute it is apparently going to be up to the the person charged to prove that they weren't in violation of the law. This is the opposite of everything I have learned about how the US is supposed to work. Taking away the rights of the citizens a little piece at a time, just wrong. Peace 💚

[@TheFiddleFaddle]

@@DaveB-hg7el Yeah, that's pretty effed up. It's still generally true, but there's definitely efforts to undermine these most essential of democratic principles, nor has it ever been equally applied to all demographics.

[@Mellypepper]

I watched this happening live on Runkle Of The Bailey's YT channel and it was the craziest 8 hours I have ever witnessed.

[@lightkevlar]

If evidence is not right relevant to a case, prosecution can make that argument, but they have to make it in court not before anything happens and withhold it from the defense. That is 101 Very basic procedure. Non lawyers know that.

[@lpr5269]

I know that. I watched My Cousin Vinny like 20 times. 😂😂😂

[@matthewdekker6064]

Small correction: you said "testing showed that these rounds weren't the same as the ones from the set," but that's not true - no testing was ever done on these rounds. They're aesthetically identical to the rounds from the set, but that's all we know (but the makeup of these rounds is pretty unique, and if the Defense's theory is true - that Kenney provided them from a batch he got from Thell Reid - then they *are* a match with the rounds from the set). Just want to make that clear, because your explanation makes it sound like these rounds wouldn't have been a match anyway, but they definitely *could've* been (and IMO definitely were). In which case, they're definitely potentially exculpable, so that's why the judge dismissed the case. If she had good reason to believe they actually didn't match in the first place, I don't think she would've dismissed the case (she would've probably just admonished the prosecution and given a jury instruction or something). Remember, Morrisey only saw a picture of some rounds, but the rounds in the picture weren't the same as the ones Teske brought to the station. The rounds in the picture weren't identical to the ones from the set, but some of the rounds he brought to the station *were* identical.

[@nova8585]

It's crazy how much power the state+police have in prosecution. I don't know how the defense even managed to find out about the hidden evidence case reclassifications and stuff but if those were the things they were caught on, it'd be scary to think how much evidence the prosecution managed to successfully hide.

[@nonexistent608]

If they repaired the gun, then it is essentially a new gun. No test they do is worth anything because the gun is not in the same state it was during the incident.

[@navi2710]

Motion to dismiss WITH PEERJUDICE!!!! Holy crap, the prossecution hd to have screwed up on a criminal level for a judge to dismiss with perjudice effectively making it impossible for the state to charge Alec Baldwin ever again with this crime. Pretty much a Not Guilty verdict,

[@daedalron]

Yeah, they screwed up on a galactic level... To the point the prosecutor herself had to take the stand and be cross-examined under oath...

[@navi2710]

@@daedalron I bash America for LOLs but this wasn't just some random lawyer from a private practise. These are prosecuters with a near unlimited budget and they couldn't be bothered to do their jobs properly. FML how did things get this bad.

[@annamelvina216]

​@@daedalron I mean she didn't have to. Both the judge and the defense attorney told her she didn't have to take the stand, but she did anyway. Which is arguably even crazier than her having to take the stand.

[@daedalron]

@@annamelvina216 That's in the second time. At first, when the prosecutor offered to testify, the judge said that she will have to. Then later on, when it came time to go on the stand, then the judge and defense attorney tried to discourage her to take the stand. But yeah, when both the judge, and the f**ing opposing counsel, tell you so clearly that you shouldn't be doing this, it's insane that she still took the stand after that...

[@shurhaian]

The judge did point out that jeopardy was attached. A mistrial would have to be for something other than prosecutorial misconduct for it to be retried; the only way the case *could* be dismissed was with prejudice.

[@UnDeaDCyBorg]

I don't know why I keep watching these. I am not American, I find case law to be mindboggling, and I don't know of half the cases discussed. But, it is educational. Every so often, one is recommended, and if I click on it, I tend to watch it. Maybe it's just presented really well?

[@oneofus6924]

the incompetency of these people is astounding.

[@thatjeff7550]

I didn't see it as incompetency, I saw it as deliberate malfeasance.

[@planespeaking]

@@thatjeff7550 little column a, etc.

[@Ellie-rx3jt]

​@@thatjeff7550 the incompetence is the part where they got caught doing the deliberate malfeasance

[@wfchannel4673]

the worst thing about the prosecution's mishandling is that one of the most guilty parties, david halls, was given an extremely lenient plea deal he never should have even been offered.

[@lpr5269]

Everyone was offered that plea deal. Baldwin and Hannah just turned it down.

[@wfchannel4673]

@@lpr5269 afaik neither baldwin nor gutierrez-reed were offered the plea deal. also both of them had stronger arguments regarding their innocence than halls. halls was in charge of on set safety, and handed an unchecked gun that he didn't check and wasn't even supposed to touch to baldwin.

[@VihnNem]

Good for her for having the conviction to actually follow through and withdraw to personally advocate to throw it away.

[@vestlen]

Note to the editor: please use a lighter colored highlighter effect. The blue highlight makes it nearly impossible to read on a dim screen or while Night Mode is active.

[@Erika-us2ws]

Considering they read out loud what they highlight, it really shouldn’t be that hard to know what it says

[@AlphaLucky]

@@Erika-us2ws Not everyone has the ability to hear? Disabilities like being deaf are a thing, in case you just....somehow.... forgot.

[@carln5744]

@@AlphaLuckysubtitles exist for this reason

[@cron1807]

I never understood why Baldwin was being prosecuted. If anything it should be the propmaster under prosecution. Baldwin was doing as he was told, and had no reason to think the gun wasn't safe

[@ariste01]

I KNEW I heard that the gun had been broken and repaired before they determined the trigger had to be pulled but i couldn't find any reports of it recently when talking about it. I just don't buy that they can determine the trigger MUST have been pulled if they had to repair the gun to get it to fire. People swore i was making that part up.

[@Tricia_K]

There's still folks in this very comment section claiming likewise, that it had been "proven" Baldwin had pulled the trigger but now he'd "gotten away with it" - I mean, wtaf?! Afaic it makes little difference either way, as the blame still lies squarely with the armorer imo - but still...🤦‍♀️!

[@ariste01]

@Tricia_K I think as an actor, it was an accident. He had no reason to think a live round might be in the gun. However, as a producer the argument can be made that cut corners led to unsafe working conditions so he may still bear some moral responsibility there.

[@jasonknutson713]

I think this prosecutor played through Ace Attorney as their bar exam.

[@h.ar.2937]

Can you do a video on MrBeast and the legal allegations against the channel? Particularly the ‘illegal lottery’ claims. Really curious to know

[@Starfoxfan-rg6iz]

To be fair my question is more along the lines of how did a loaded gun get on the set of rust? Plus Alec baldwin couldn't have known as it looked just like a prop which is kind of the point of a prop

[@blakekaveny]

He knew it was a real gun though. He was a producer and he specifically wanted real guns and he also told them he wanted the biggest gun they could get him.

[@revlarmilion9574]

He knew it was a real gun. He thought it was loaded with blanks, not that it couldn't fire. You're meant to treat guns as if they were loaded with real bullets on set, and he knew this

[@rayafk8502]

@@blakekavenytheir question was how did a *loaded* gun get on set. They are being used as props so there is no reason why real bullets should be anywhere near that gun.

[@zippyparakeet1074]

@@revlarmilion9574 He hired an expert who he made the fatal mistake of trusting and assuming they were competent at their job. As for why they used real guns, pretty sure it was from an authenticity standpoint.

[@Ryuujinv01]

@@revlarmilion9574 It's a prop, you're not meant to treat it in the same way you would firearms anywhere else. There's a person who's job it is specifically to check and clear the weapon and that was done. IF HE DID check the gun, that means a whole day of actors not allowed to do their job because the set has to be shut down while the prop is sent back to be cleared again because it's been tampered with since the armorer last cleared it.

[@John-ke2jm]

So, when can we expect the prosecutors and Sheriff employee's to get charged with the crimes they clearly committed here?

[@OdinBarenjagerschlos]

@@John-ke2jm The rules / laws allegedly broken are probably about "relevant evidence" and you will never get 12 rational people to say those were either relevant or evidence, so never.

[@jasonnchuleft894]

The argument that him shooting blanks at another actor shows a pattern of behaviour of reckless endangerment is just royally stupid. After all It's called a blank for a reason. Plus on a set it's normal to shoot blanks to get actors used to the sounds and flash so they can act in character when the scene is shot. So the only relevant questions are: Did he load the revolver? No. Did he have any reasonable suspicion it could be loaded with live rounds he would have needed to act upon? No evidence for that. So there's no negligence to be found. The death is tragic, but the culprit has already been found, tried and found guilty so I struggle to even see a case here tbh.

[@Reinforce_Zwei]

A blank might have LESS gunpowder than a "regular" bullet but people have still been killed by blanks, so "it's called a blank for a reason" is royally stupid. Baldwin was practicing drawing the weapon from it's holster. He should not have been touching the trigger, it should not have been loaded. He was a producer as well as an actor, therefore he was just as responsible for gun safety as any other actor or producer on set. The whole thing with the ammo screams tampering. A friend of the convicted armourer's father just happens to drop off ammo 2 years after the incident and almost immediately after her conviction? Ammo that did not match the supplied rounds mind you, they were similar enough to pass the "well they look the same" test but failed when actually inspected.

[@jdotoz]

Did he personally verify the weapon was not loaded when he took physical custody of it? No. Thus, he had the moral obligation to consider it loaded when he pointed it at a human being.

[@neilkurzman4907]

@@Reinforce_Zwei Yes, for specific load of blank the distance between the shooter and the person being shot at must be at least a certain distance. So to be negligent, the person would have to be inside that distance. They also didn’t say if it was supervised. Actors can’t just go get blanks, or at least they shouldn’t be able to.

[@neilkurzman4907]

@@jdotoz Adding the word thus doesn’t make what you said true. The screen guild actors contract says the actors are not responsible. Though they can request the witness the gun being inspected, not that they should do with themselves.

[@neoqwerty]

@@Reinforce_Zwei To further back up your point that the OP was being ignorant about blanks: A blank has twice the gunpowder as a real bullet, according to Dave Brown, a Canadian firearms safety specialist (he addressed it during a Q&A session on FilmCourage, while he was discussing Brandon Lee's shooting, so this is per 1993 standards, it might have changed). "“Blanks aren’t toys,” warns firearms dealer Bob Lesmeister. “You have to remember that the force of the exploding gas is great enough to fire a bullet.” In fact, some blank cartridges contain more gunpowder than regular ones in order to ensure an extra-loud sound." So at least as much as a normal bullet, but it can go all the way to twice.