Alec Baldwin Shot and Killed Female Cinematographer, Injured Director on Movie Set

[sparebulb]

....a fourth was in a gun belt worn by Baldwin, and a fifth was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it

.

This is what I don't like about reporting these days.

Were the fingerprints found on the box of ammunition or the bullet in question?

That clarification would make a world of difference to help us fully understand the alleged role of the armorer.

[dannno]

This is what I don't like about reporting these days.

Were the fingerprints found on the box of ammunition or the bullet in question?

That clarification would make a world of difference to help us fully understand the alleged role of the armorer.

Pretty sure the bullet had her finger prints, question is were her finger prints on all the bullets found? It sounds like it was just on the one bullet found in the box.

[sparebulb]

Pretty sure the bullet had her finger prints, question is were her finger prints on all the bullets found? It sounds like it was just on the one bullet found in the box.

Perhaps an English major could explain how this is correct form to indicate what you said, but for me, with my government skool education, it could mean one or the other.

For argument's sake, if her fingerprints were on the dummy ammo box, but not on any of the live bullets, there is a Perry Mason worthy defense that someone else did it.

If her fingerprints were on a live bullet anywhere on the set, and especially one inside the dummy ammo box, it is game over for her. So much so that I would assign her a much greater level of culpability than even that turd Baldwin.

[dannno]

Perhaps an English major could explain how this is correct form to indicate what you said, but for me, with my government skool education, it could mean one or the other.

For argument's sake, if her fingerprints were on the dummy ammo box, but not on any of the live bullets, there is a Perry Mason worthy defense that someone else did it.

If her fingerprints were on a live bullet anywhere on the set, and especially one inside the dummy ammo box, it is game over for her. So much so that I would assign her a much greater level of culpability than even that turd Baldwin.

My mom has a Master's degree in english and is obsessed with murder mystery tv shows, she read it the same way I did. Finger prints on the actual bullet in the ammo box, no specific indication of finger prints on the other live bullets.

[Occam's Banana]

My mom has a Master's degree in english and is obsessed with murder mystery tv shows, she read it the same way I did. Finger prints on the actual bullet in the ammo box, no specific indication of finger prints on the other live bullets.

sparebulb is right: the antecedent of "it" in "[...] a fifth [bullet] was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it" is ambiguous at best, and can be read either way.

To clearly convey that the fingerprints were on the bullet, the sentence should have read "[...] a fifth [bullet] with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it was found in a box of dummy ammunition". Stated in that way, there would be no confusion at all about where the fingerprints were. (And if the fingerprints were on the box, then an additional sentence should have been used instead of trying to cram everything into one - for example: "[...] a fifth [bullet] was found in a box of dummy ammunition. The box had Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it.")

[acptulsa]

sparebulb is right

Can't be. His mother doesn't have a degree in the stuff. Where would we be if we didn't trust the experts, or when they're not available, the children of experts--besides not in debt, not suffering inflation, not embroiled in proxy wars, and not dying of calamari clots, that is?

[dannno]

sparebulb is right: the antecedent of "it" in "[...] a fifth [bullet] was found in a box of dummy ammunition with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it" is ambiguous at best, and can be read either way.

To clearly convey that the fingerprints were on the bullet, the sentence should have read "[...] a fifth [bullet] with Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it was found in a box of dummy ammunition". Stated in that way, there would be no confusion at all about where the fingerprints were. (And if the fingerprints wee on the box, then an additional sentence should have been used instead of trying to cram everything into one - for example: "[...] a fifth [bullet] was found in a box of dummy ammunition. The box had Gutierrez Reed’s fingerprints on it.")

The main subject is the bullet. It is somewhat ambiguous and not very well written, but if the fingerprints were on the box, not the bullet, then it is even more poorly written.

[acptulsa]

The main subject is the bullet. It is somewhat ambiguous and not very well written, but if the fingerprints were on the box, not the bullet, then it is even more poorly written.

I see a commercial on TV on a regular basis in which the spokesman says, "As a musician suffering from diabetes, finger-sticks are..." Whatever else the act of poking one's finger for a blood sugar count may be, it can't be a musician and it can't suffer from diabetes.

Your expectations are way, way too high. Even when they're not deliberately butchering the language to mislead everyone, or to give themselves plausible deniability for when they get caught lying outright ("you misread that"), they deliberately keep their standards low because otherwise people could use the quality of the syntax to tell truth from fiction. Or maybe they're deliberately dumbing people down. Or both.

For someone who seems somewhat obsessed with fake news, you don't seem to have put much thought into how it works.

[sparebulb]

Even when they're not deliberately butchering the language to mislead everyone, or to give themselves plausible deniability for when they get caught lying outright ("you misread that"), they deliberately keep their standards low because otherwise people could use the quality of the syntax to tell truth from fiction. Or maybe they're deliberately dumbing people down. Or both.

You nailed it.

[dannno]

I see a commercial on TV on a regular basis in which the spokesman says, "As a musician suffering from diabetes, finger-sticks are..." Whatever else the act of poking one's finger for a blood sugar count may be, it can't be a musician and it can't suffer from diabetes.

Your expectations are way, way too high. Even when they're not deliberately butchering the language to mislead everyone, or to give themselves plausible deniability for when they get caught lying outright ("you misread that"), they deliberately keep their standards low because otherwise people could use the quality of the syntax to tell truth from fiction. Or maybe they're deliberately dumbing people down. Or both.

For someone who seems somewhat obsessed with fake news, you don't seem to have put much thought into how it works.

You mean like the spat of articles coming out every few days about how Donald Trump's NFTs are down by 73%, and the articles I read, always give the price of the NFTs when they hit their all time high the day after, but never include the original price of the NFT, where they were up 100-200% from the sale price?

You could be right they are deliberately misleading people on this one, but I think most people would read that and take it to mean the bullet had the fingerprints.

EDIT: Looks like they are now reporting the NFTs both doubled in price and volume surged 800% in the last 24 hours..

[Occam's Banana]

The main subject is the bullet. It is somewhat ambiguous and not very well written, but if the fingerprints were on the box, not the bullet, then it is even more poorly written.

Yes, the subject is indeed the bullet - but the box is a prepositional object, and due to the structure of the statement, it is not clear which is the intended antecedent of the pronoun "it". That was sparebulb's whole point.

It is poorly written and ambiguous, period - not merely "somewhat" so.

I provided simple and unambiguous examples of how it could have been written in order to clearly convey either case.

[...] I think most people would read that and take it to mean the bullet had the fingerprints.

If you are counting on how you imagine "most people" will read something, but you still need to consult with holders of English degrees to verify your imagination, then you should consider the possibility that "most people" might not arrive at your interpretation, after all.

If you apply the logic of your interpretation of the "fingerprints" sentence consistently, then for a statement like "he put the flower in the wooden box with engravings of dolphins on it", you would have to say that "most people" would read that and take it to mean the flower (not the box) was engraved with dolphins (because the flower is the "main subject"). But that isn't the case. "Most people" understand that flowers are not typically engraved, while wooden boxes often may be. No such understanding exists with respect to the finding of fingerprints on bullets as opposed to finding them on boxes - fingerprints might just as easily be found on either. Hence, the confusion and ambiguity inherent in the "fingerprints" statement as it was constructed by the writer and allowed to stand by the editor(s).

The moral of this story is: Don't separate pronouns and their antecedents with chains of prepositional objects when any of those objects is reasonably susceptible to being interpreted as the antecedent.

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

We need a ruling on this fingerprint interpretation now.

[acptulsa]

https://twitter.com/MostlyPeacefull/...39177596989440

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUkib6ZKdmM

[sparebulb]

It suddenly looks pretty serious.

I'm glad I'm me and not Alec Baldwin.

[tebowlives]

Watching the new Kevin Hart movie, "Die Hart". The premise is Hart wants to be an action hero in his movies so he goes to get trained like an action hero. Halfway through the movie has Kevin Hart not wanting to do a scenario that has a gun with blanks. He says he doesn't trust another actor who is involved as well as the Action Hero trainer because he thinks their guns are loaded with live ammo. hart thinks the trainer is a psycho.

I wonder what Alec Baldwin thinks of this scene?

Is this an actual smack down of Baldwin by Hollywood?

[jmdrake]

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-say-rcna80722

I go back to what I said earlier. There's no reason for actors to use real guns on set. None. Nada. Nunca. This has nothing to do with self defense or the 2nd amendment. It has everything to do with the fact that actors are in general not qualified to use guns. Actors originally starred in plays. They are playing. You don't play with guns. Ever see a movie or TV show where part of the gag is the actor is fumbling with the gun and drops it? Yeah. There could be a live round in there and somebody could die. We lost Brandon Lee, Bruce Lee's son, to this same nonsense. Since the 1970s in Star Wars and Battlestar Gallatica, beam weapons have been simulated through special effects. In the 21st century even gun smoke can be done with computer animation in post production. If people need on set need to be able to carry guns for self defense purposes that's fine. But those guns should not be used in the actual filming of the movie. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.

[Anti Federalist]

[Snowball]

of course they were dropped

he wasn't guilty of anything.

[Occam's Banana]

Charges against Alec Baldwin DROPPED in fatal shooting death of Halyna Hutchins
Alec Baldwin has dodged a legal bullet in the Halyna Hutchins' death case.
https://thepostmillennial.com/breaki...alyna-hutchins
Roberto Wakerell-Cruz (20 April 2023)

Alec Baldwin has dodged a legal bullet in the Halyna Hutchins' death case. The multi-Emmy-winning actor will not be facing involuntary manslaughter claims in the mini-trial scheduled to begin in New Mexico in less than two weeks.

Sources told Deadline that special prosecutors Kari Morrissey and Jason Lewis, who were recently appointed to the case, are expected to file paperwork soon to dismiss the charges without prejudice. This means that while the charges are dropped for now, the case could be reopened in the future as the investigation continues.

Baldwin's legal team, Luke Nikas and Alex Spiro, are pleased with the decision and are encouraging a proper investigation into the circumstances of the tragic accident. The Santa Fe's District Attorney's office declined to comment on the situation.

“We are pleased with the decision to dismiss the case against Alec Baldwin and we encourage a proper investigation into the facts and circumstances of this tragic accident,” said Baldwin attorneys.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, Baldwin's co-defendant and ex-Rust armorer, still faces charges, keeping the investigation open and giving prosecutors the power to subpoena going forward.

Previously, both Gutierrez-Reed and Baldwin had pleaded not guilty. Despite Baldwin's repeated insistence that he did not pull the trigger on the prop gun that killed Halyna Hutchins, an FBI report released last year disagreed with his account. Baldwin's lawyers are now contesting the state of the gun, and further investigation into the firearm appears likely as part of any renewed probe.

[Occam's Banana]

Alec Baldwin Charges DROPPED! What's it MEAN?
https://rumble.com/v2jhala-alec-bald...s-it-mean.html

[69360]

Hollywood royalty can do no wrong. The peon will take the fall for him. Is anyone surprised?

[osan]

Charges of involuntary manslaughter against Alex Baldwin have been dropped pending "further investigation".

Prosecutor claims "new evidence" has surfaced, yet has refused to reveal what it may be.

I told people a few days after the event that Baldwin was likely to skate on this. And why shouldn't he? After all, guns are well known to load themselves and pull their own triggers. Al-baby has been unequivocal in maintaining that he never pulled the trigger, and in my opinion we should all believe him because Hollywood.

Watch this simply fade into the mists, except for the armorer, the charges against whom remain... of course. I mean, somebody's got to go to prison, right? But perhaps she'll skate as well. Look for the GPT video of the revolver in an interrogation room, cigarette in hand, spilling its guts about his grudge against the two victims... how they never treated him right... how his life as a prop was a living hell, thanks to those two... how they owed him, but never came across... how he'd been slighted his whole life because he was black... CASE CLOSED! Life in a locked case in the back of Baldwin's Volvo. Justice has been served and the people of America may now stop wringing hands and gnashing teeth over it. Another Eville™ gun taken off the streets! Oh praise Science! Computer Science, that is...

[vita3]

Work on your rants...slipping

[showpan]

Another Democrat who is above the law. The original prosecutor who braught charges against him was ousted and new ones were appointed who dropped the charges.

[ClaytonB]

As much as I dislike Baldwin's politics and his personality, there does seem to be a strong possibility that he is not guilty of murder. Here's a fictional scenario which might portray what actually happened that day, or not. Baldwin, being a gun-hater, would likely have had no respect for the gravity of firearms, and would likely be especially reckless with set firearms. In addition, Baldwin considers himself some kind of Hollywood mover-and-shaker; combined with his overbearing personality, we can suppose that Baldwin frequently joked/teased his inferiors with on-set antics involving set weapons. "Bang! Got ya! Now play dead!" Furthermore, let's suppose that the armorer was, as she appears to be, involved in some kind of satanic cult, and let's suppose that they have given her the challenge to demonstrate her loyalty/worthiness by switching out one of Baldwin's blanks with a live round, with the tragic result of Hutchins' death.

Now, that's a long string of suppositions but each of these suppositions is quite plausible, in my view. The big problem I have with the "Baldwin did it" theory, is the complete lack of motive. There is simply no benefit to Baldwin. Baldwin's obviously guilty reaction and awkward interview appearances afterwards are not difficult to explain in my fictional scenario -- he really did pull the trigger, not knowing the gun was loaded with a live-round, and that could be a negligent homicide charge since he had no business pointing the gun and pulling the trigger at any time except according to the instructions of the director. But negligent homicide is not murder. I'm not accusing Baldwin of pulling the trigger; I have no idea because I wasn't there. Nevertheless, I don't think the "Baldwin slipped a live round into the gun and shot Hutchins for the giggles"-theory is the most plausible theory. It is almost certain that something else happened that day but, whatever the case, it was surely a tragic event...

[TheTexan]

Well I mean the gun did just fire completely on its own, perhaps charges should be filed against the firearm itself

[TheTexan]

As much as I dislike Baldwin's politics and his personality, there does seem to be a strong possibility that he is not guilty of murder. Here's a fictional scenario which might portray what actually happened that day, or not. Baldwin, being a gun-hater, would likely have had no respect for the gravity of firearms, and would likely be especially reckless with set firearms. In addition, Baldwin considers himself some kind of Hollywood mover-and-shaker; combined with his overbearing personality, we can suppose that Baldwin frequently joked/teased his inferiors with on-set antics involving set weapons. "Bang! Got ya! Now play dead!" Furthermore, let's suppose that the armorer was, as she appears to be, involved in some kind of satanic cult, and let's suppose that they have given her the challenge to demonstrate her loyalty/worthiness by switching out one of Baldwin's blanks with a live round, with the tragic result of Hutchins' death.

Now, that's a long string of suppositions but each of these suppositions is quite plausible, in my view. The big problem I have with the "Baldwin did it" theory, is the complete lack of motive. There is simply no benefit to Baldwin. Baldwin's obviously guilty reaction and awkward interview appearances afterwards are not difficult to explain in my fictional scenario -- he really did pull the trigger, not knowing the gun was loaded with a live-round, and that could be a negligent homicide charge since he had no business pointing the gun and pulling the trigger at any time except according to the instructions of the director. But negligent homicide is not murder. I'm not accusing Baldwin of pulling the trigger; I have no idea because I wasn't there. Nevertheless, I don't think the "Baldwin slipped a live round into the gun and shot Hutchins for the giggles"-theory is the most plausible theory. It is almost certain that something else happened that day but, whatever the case, it was surely a tragic event...

Keep in mind that there were 2 other accidental gun discharges on this set a few days prior

Shows pattern of gross negligence by basically everyone involved

[ClaytonB]

Keep in mind that there were 2 other accidental gun discharges on this set a few days prior

Oh really, I didn't know that.

Shows pattern of gross negligence by basically everyone involved

No doubt.

[Occam's Banana]

As much as I dislike Baldwin's politics and his personality, there does seem to be a strong possibility that he is not guilty of murder.

You could be on to something, there.

(It might even explain why he was never charged with murder.)