L.O.G. 194 Felony Stupid

Alright, good morning, Greg. For today's episode, we are going to be jumping into a case that's sort of been in the news quite a bit and talking about a few things about it. It's the one where Alec Baldwin is involved in the movie Rust that he was making, where a woman was accidentally killed while he was practicing in between takes. They were doing their takes, he was practicing whatever she was having him do, and there was a live round in the gun when there shouldn't have been, and it killed her. So I want to go over that.

But before you do, here's the thing, folks: this is not a mega episode. This is a really, really good episode. Stick around for it. So if you think you've heard all of it about the Rust shooting, you haven't. And this is the first time you and I are actually going to scratch the surface of this.

Yeah, because a lot more has come out, and it goes into a bigger discussion about some of these cases that we've seen where people are accidentally shot and killed with weapons, to include a family pet was involved in some of these that we've seen. But we'll get to all that.

I do want to talk about some of the elements of this case because I think legally it's a fascinating one. I see all kinds of people bashing Alec Baldwin, saying, "Yeah, he should go to jail," just because they don't like Alec Baldwin, and maybe not realizing what legal precedent means and what this could mean for other cases. But I'll just go ahead, and I don't care about what your thoughts are on Alec Baldwin or who he is or his comedy or his political opinions. If it was Billy Baldwin, come on, he is the most successful Baldwin brother.

So, I just want to get into this, and I'll put the links in the actual details, but I want to read some of this from a New York Times article on it, and it's a good one because it has links to the other cases that are involved and coming from this, so you can actually just go to this one and find a whole bunch of others. So it's a great little rabbit hole that you can go down. But this is from their reporting, and again, if you want to read it, I'm going to summarize some of it.

Baldwin was told, he was assured, the gun he was rehearsing with that day did not contain live ammunition and sat down for an interview, if anyone saw it. And he sought indemnification from financial liability in the case. And even I didn't know about this, but a few months ago, he sued some of the crew members on the film, claiming that they were responsible for handing him a loaded gun.

So this past week, prosecutors said they're going to charge him with two counts of involuntary manslaughter in the killing of the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, saying they believed he had a duty to ensure that the revolver was safe to handle. Important point we'll get to. "We're trying to definitely make clear that everybody's equal under the law, including A-list actors like Alec Baldwin," Andrea Reeb, the special prosecutor, said. "And we want to make sure the safety of the film industry is addressed and things like this don't happen again."

This armorer who's on the set, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, who loaded the gun that day and is responsible for the weapons on the set, will also be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. And the film had an assistant director, a guy by the name of David Halls. He's the one who handed Alec Baldwin the gun. He took a plea deal not long ago on negligent use of a deadly weapon, I believe, was the charge. So...

In an interview with detectives, Baldwin said the gun should have been "cold" (meaning, with no rounds inside). Baldwin's attorney said, "Baldwin had no reason to believe there's a live bullet in the gun or anywhere on the movie set. He relied on the professionals with whom he worked, who assured him the gun did not have live rounds. We will fight these charges. We will win."

And then you add some of the SAG-AFTRA folks, that's the Screen Actors Guild union, talking about this as a preventable tragedy, but it was not a failure of duty or criminal act on the part of any performer. So obviously, they're the union that represents them, so they're going to take his side, right? But I just thought, of course, people chime in with this. Like I said, I think it was on Hulu or somewhere I watched it, but one of the news channels did an interview with him a while back, and he said, "Someone is responsible for what happened. I can't say who that is, but I know it's not me." So obviously, he's trying to deflect.

The district attorney said in an interview, "Mr. Baldwin had a duty to ensure the gun and the ammunition were properly checked and that he should never have pointed it at anyone." And her comment was, "You should not point a gun at someone you're not willing to shoot." And we'll talk about basic weapon safety rules, but also, this is a movie set, right?

The armorer who's responsible for the weapons loaded the gun that day and told the investigator she checked the gun and all six cartridges she loaded, but she also remarked, "I wished I would have checked it more." Obviously, her attorney's fighting that. Like I said, Mr. Halls, the assistant director, was the one who took the revolver from some tray that was set up there, and then he handed it to Baldwin, saying out loud, "It's a cold gun," meaning it's indicated to not contain live ammunition.

So there are a few other facts that I just want to hit. There's a lot you can jump into, but just for the purposes of time, I just want to hit a couple of these other ones too. And they said that obviously Gutierrez Reed, the woman who is the armorer on the set, was supposed to – there are certain protocols that they have to do to make sure that the rounds are dummies or inert or whatever the proper ammunition is in there, because some of them are like the blank-firing ones that still give a loud bang and shoot off powder.

That kind of stuff. So they found other live ammunition on the set during the investigation, including on the top of the cart where the props were that Alec Baldwin was using. Right. I believe they found some of it in his belt, like his prop gun belt that he was wearing as part of this Western movie. They found, I believe, live rounds in there.

So there's a bunch of other lawsuits during it, and what also came up in the investigation, with interviews from the sheriff's office, is that a lot of the crew members described what they called a lack of consistent meetings devoted to onset safety. Some of the crew had quit the night before because of lodging concerns and a few other issues, and one of them said that the filming of gunfight scenes was played very fast and loose, and there were a couple of accidental weapons discharges during the filming. So, those were the big facts of the case that I wanted to hit before we jumped into the discussion, just so everyone had a general idea of it.

Now, obviously, Alec Baldwin's being charged, which goes to a number of things. Obviously, on this movie set, in particular, you have people there that are assigned – their whole job is to ensure safety of those weapon systems. There should be no reason to have live ammunition, other than the person who's in control of those weapons will often have a live weapon with them for security purposes where they're transporting firearms to and from movie sets from areas. So there are certain protocols and procedures that would make sense for that to happen, Greg. But obviously, those things should be nowhere near these type of weapons, and how that got mixed in is clearly a lack of safety protocols.

Obviously, the armorer, too – one of the other facts I did want to mention – also had some other role on that set. I forget what it was, some sort of other assistant helping out with props or something like that because this was a low-budget film, which means, from what I understand, people have multiple roles, not just a role as a character, but you know, you're the director, but you're also setting up lunch and doing the things that a normal big production show you would never do. So they're saying, "Hey, she also had other roles on this." So there's a lot to talk about in there, Greg. It's a fascinating one legally, but it's also fascinating. It highlights how often these things occur all over the country every single day with accidental discharges or negligent discharges.

I've seen all kinds of different ones in my life, everything from automatic grenade launchers to bolt-action rifles where there were negligent discharges. But that's obviously within the military or police context and a live fire situation, meaning, at least in those situations, there was supposed to be live ammunition and shooting going on prior to or after. So, a little bit different context, but I have seen a lot of those things happen before, even amongst professionals. That's why you have very basic rules. If you follow all of them, there can still be a malfunctioning of the weapon system and have some sort of discharge. However, if you're following all safety rules, it should not result in someone getting injured or killed. So I just want to throw all that out there. There's kind of a lot.

No, no, it's an incredible place to start, Brian. So here's the first thing I would ask anybody that listens to us routinely, or a new listener, viewer: write down the word "manslaughter." Man's laughter, man's laughter. And there's nothing to laugh about, but let's think in terms of why manslaughter was chosen. Well, let's add a word: involuntary. So involuntary manslaughter is simply the killing of another human being where it's illegal, it's unlawful, but it was unintentional. And we would never have heard of this case for so long if it hadn't been associated with Alec Baldwin, who has got decades of Hollywood chops in some of the best, in some of the worst films, and then some of the best television and some of the worst television.

Had we not had this situation, it would have been an addendum, it would have been a remark somewhere in Hollywood. If this was a low-budget film that didn't have high-name profile people in it, actually just some folks out there filming a movie, we never would have heard of it. We likely would not have been talking about it right now. So that young kid—folks, do your own homework because I've got an agenda in my mind and I can't interrupt it or I'll have to start all over again—but the kid that was related to Bruce Lee that was shot, and that weapon was unloaded, but there was enough of a charge that was in it that it did the damage. There was a TV show when I was growing up, Brian, in the '70s, called Alias Smith and Jones, probably the best, fun TV show ever, and it was canceled after one of those people had a prop accident with a prop gun, and it was a western, and they died. So there is precedent, and people do die from these things.

So the involuntary nature of the manslaughter. Let's talk about David Halls. David Halls, you're talking about assistant director. So he pled on the nose to negligent use of a firearm. Now, when used as a sentence enhancement, that can add up to five years of a prison sentence. You get what I'm saying? Like in Detroit, "one with the gun gets you two." So, here, did he take a chance? No, because he pled on the nose, rather, to a misdemeanor. And what he did is he literally said, "Okay, I'll take this charge, which is a lesser included offense to bring the felony off the table."

You've got Baldwin and Gutierrez Reed. They're charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter, both of which are fourth-degree felonies now. And that, Brian, depending on the jury verdict, they can go anywhere from 18 months in jail with a couple of thousands of dollars to five years in prison and get the sentence enhancement of the misdemeanor with an additional five years. So this is why we're hearing all the smoke and mirrors about this caper, simply because there's jail time associated with it. If this was monetary, if this was a civil case, Justice Baldwin can take it. So exactly. And SAG (Screen Actors Guild) would come in with an attorney and some other people and stuff.

And then you go, because I like this laser focus, you go from words like "responsibility," "duty." It's completely different, bro. So responsibility is you have a responsibility to do something that means there's sort of a check-in-the-box thing that most people agree these things should. Like, for example, use a different knife for your meat and your vegetables, wash your hands after handling chicken in the kitchen before you go on to fill the glasses with orange juice for breakfast, or whatever. Okay, so those are responsibilities that a person has to ensure what? To ensure the safety of the food and the delivery, all that.

But a duty, a duty means that there's a legal standard that is demonstrated that if you fail to do this, havoc ensues. You get what I'm trying to say? Or hijinks is going to lead to the death or protracted loss of limb or something. And so I think that's important, an important distinction, because what we're talking about here, Brian, is very simple. You brought up something that complicates it needlessly, meaning intentionally, you did it, don't get me wrong. You said, "Hey, listen, some armorers have to carry weapons." Yeah, because they're carrying weapons. Well, it totally makes sense, right? Definitely. That never breaks leather, that's never coming out of the holster unless there's an armed hostile takeover.

So the idea of having, for example, the idea of having just a couple of loose live rounds, that's the sloppiest set I've ever heard of. So Andrea Reeb, if you know anything about Andrea Reeb, look her up, folks. Great special prosecutor assigned specifically to review the facts of this case. And we love facts. And she says a review of the evidence in the case clearly showed a pattern of criminal disregard for safety. You said it yourself. So the level of disregard was criminal, it wasn't just sloppy. And the second part of it is her comment in, I think it was NPR, but I don't want to say it, look it up, not you, Brian, but the folks listening. She said, and I quote, "If any of these three people—Alec Baldwin, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, or David Halls—had done their job, Halyna Hutchins would be alive today. It's that simple." That's a bold statement for a special prosecutor to make. That means that she's got a number of facts to back it up because that becomes the case in chief. The case in chief is the four corners of the document that they're going to go with, the prosecutor's office, to court with and be in front of a jury.

Now, why did they do it the way that they did? Because the involuntary manslaughter, the fourth-degree felonies, have a range, and the jury can determine the range, so they want to leave it up to the jury. Whereas David Halls said, "I'm not leaving [bleep] up, right?" I'm going to go straight in front of the judge and go, "Yes, I'm responsible for the negligent use of a firearm because it was my duty to check the firearm."

Well, that's a bold movement. That's why I put that in there, because he did say on the record, he said, "It's a cold gun." So he's declaring that, "I've inspected this. I've done my duty, and I've recognized the fact that everything is safe with this weapon." And in fact, it was not. So when I, I'm assuming when I read that quote, that's why I was like, "Oh, well, I see why he took a plea deal," because it was pretty obvious here. Like, you clearly did not check that. And because what will your attorney say, Brian?

Your attorney will say, "Because it's Friday," what's "Shut the [bleep] up Friday"? Exactly. There's number one. And the second thing is that, listen, if there are comments that you have made, and they're on YouTube and Twitter and other people are testifying to the fact, you have to do one of two things: you aggressively go after and say, "That wasn't me, they're all liars, I'm the only one telling the truth," or you fall on your sword, Brian, and you fall on your sword early enough. You say, "Yeah, that thing, I did that thing." But all these other things that... Because look, where do you want to be tried? I want to be tried in a court of law, not the court of innuendo on the streets. You get what I'm trying to create?

The court of commentary, though. Yeah. You know, you've seen how bad that goes. So, you know, this is obviously, for the legal side of it, an interesting case because, yeah, you got in, you mentioned, you started to mention it, and you know it. You're getting into the fact of in this firm, they're saying he had a duty to do certain things, so therefore he's responsible and negligent, and it's rising enough. There's enough criminal negligence here, or there's enough negligence, there's enough lack of standards to the fact where there's, it's now a criminal act. And clearly that's the difference.

Yeah, so it wasn't a freak accident out of nowhere. So you have a responsibility to walk around your car and make sure your kid's not behind your car before you back out, yet every year thousands of kids are injured and dozens die when somebody backs over their own child. We see those horrific reports that happen all over the world. Okay, that's a responsibility. You have a responsibility, right? That's what makes it non-criminal. You get what I'm trying to say?

Now, if you got in an argument in the house and said, "Hey, kiss my ass," and you ran out, you had a couple of drinks in you, and you threw it in reverse and lit up the tires and you hit the neighbor's kid, now we're talking about different because he had a duty. You see? And it's really that simple. When it comes down to, you're going to have some legal pundit that's going to come on and go, "Well, yes, but the, you know, this and that." The bottom line is, Brian, they were on a set. They had demonstrated sloppy activities in the past. It was only likely to get worse. There were allegations that they actually went out shooting live rounds while they're somewhere on the set and then came back and filmed some other stuff. You even said that there was a willy-nilly approach to the rehearsal of the shootout scenes with some neg discharges (negligent discharges), right? I mean, think about that. Those are the type of things that would demonstrate to a reasonable person that it was dangerous there.

And look, you know what we're not talking about? We're not talking about the "happy head." There's a distinct difference, like Colorado Springs and, I can't remember the other city, a couple of hours apart, kids were in the car, parents went into the marijuana dispensary, kids were swimming around under the seat, found the gun, and one kid shot the other kid to death. Okay, that's the "happy head." The nets are flooded with these danger warning messages, but they're delayed. Why? Because it's the years and years of self-inflicted psychological abuse and wounds that we get from our request for immediate gratification. So instead of the kid looking at that gun and going, "That's a gun, it's dangerous," that kid looks at the gun and says, "Every TV show, every game that I play, all this other stuff, and wow, this is amazing! Why would Dad have this under the seat or Mom?" Right? Do you get the difference there? So we're responsible for setting up the incidents that happen.

And that leads us into the, for example, the case you alluded to in your prologue. In the past five years that I know of, 600 have been shot by their own dogs. Six hundred, yeah. Okay, so many of those resulted in the hunter dying.

That was, so there's a recent one too. The hunter this year, just a week or two, just a couple of days ago, where the dog, you know, they had it, something, the gun was in the car, and then the dog ended up stepping on it and killed the guy in his own vehicle right there.

But "happy head." Okay, so you have your brain is set up with electrochemical impulses and responses, and they're specifically designed to keep you alive. For example, the acute stress response. You know, you have the "fight, flight, or freeze" that turned into "fight, flight, freeze, or fawn," and now it's "fight, flight, freeze, fawn, and faint," Brian, because it's going to be people dead and [bleep] onto it, whatever. You get what I'm trying to say? And then, "Hey, make me a PhD because look, I've come up with it." But the central point is the acute stress response. Stop reading shitty books, read one good one. Acute stress response says this: your prefrontal cortex runs what you're doing and how you're threading the needle and changing lanes and talking to your spouse and regulating the incoming information, executive function, high-level executive decisions. The minute the brain goes, "Hey, there's a potential for stress, danger, or opportunity," thinking is inhibited in the prefrontal cortex and goes immediately anecdotal responses, and the amygdala is all about knee-jerk emotions right now, quick decisions because I got to do something to get out of harm's way. That's the difference.

So when you're sitting there and you have the luxury of time, you have the luxury of thinking, "Hey, I better not clean my gun before I unload it." Yeah, but I remember an incident in our vehicle base where one of the, I'm not going to get into great detail, but a person had a Glock, and the person dumped the mag on the Glock and didn't cycle a round and show everybody the round or clear the picture round in the chamber, clear the weapon and show everybody that was around him. And they turned and aimed the weapon into the ground to make sure that the firing pin wasn't engaged, and they cranked off a nine-millimeter. And it's like, "Whose weapon is that?" "My weapon." "How long have you carried that weapon?" "11 years." "Have you ever had a negligent discharge?" "No." "Why did you have one today?" "Because all your fellow wranglers were standing around, they were all at the weapons barrel cleaning their weapons, and you got the 'happy head'." What's a happy head? Overwhelmed. I'm flooded with all of this emotion that's coming along with it. "Hey, I'm under the gun." People know—pun intended—"I'm being watched. I better do this right because I'm the resident expert."

Have we ever seen instances of that? Remember the DEA video from many years ago that was on YouTube? What did that DEA guy say? "Yeah, I'm the only one who's qualified to do this." He pulled it out, I kept everything that he's trying to re-holster straight, and he shot himself in the foot, I believe, and the ground went off right out of class.

Yeah, but I've seen people shoot themselves in the legs. There's probably, yeah, we're not talking about all the penetration of rounds, multiple rounds into a clearing barrel as they're clearing their pistols, like, "You don't know how to do this?" And so I've seen coppers crank off shotgun rounds when they're releasing their shotgun inside of the scout car to make sure that it's unloaded, right? Thank you.

Yeah. So that can only happen because of the "happy head." I've seen pistols, you know, rifles, belt-fed weapon systems, shotguns. I've seen all kinds of different precision bolt-action rifles, and people negligently discharge stuff. And it's just that you're not going through the process that you're supposed to.

And so, you know, this stuff happens, and you know, you like to call that the "happy head" because it's very simple. Everyone can tell you basic weapon safety rules. Anyone's ever had any type of even minimal training, just showing up to a range the first time firing a weapon, they're going to explain the safety rules. And so, you know, how does this stuff get bypassed? Because I see it, I've seen it all the time. I've seen very guys whose job is to shoot constantly, and that's all they do, and they probably shoot thousands upon thousands of rounds every month and still have some sort of issue. It's because of that, you know, even though when you put those simple steps in place, you know, you can become overwhelmed and you know, you're not paying attention. As they say, each little thing leads to another. I mean, that's it goes back to the Rust case. All of these other issues were contributing factors to Halyna Hutchins getting shot.

Which became the approximate cause.

You're exactly right. And you know, for example, we talk about, you know, little things and making sure people stick to the rules or standard operating procedures or whatever it is or policies, because once you let it slide a little bit, it starts to slide a lot more, and then the momentum builds, and then it literally leads to a situation like this. And so, I mean, there are plenty of examples of how this occurs. And then, you know, especially with the kid ones are obviously brutal. And then, of course, you know, everything, you know, you see so many where the explanation is, "So and so is cleaning their gun," which I instantly am like, "[Bleep] you weren't cleaning your gun! Like, you were [bleep] around with it, you were doing something stupid and you accidentally ripped the round off, and then you told everyone, 'Oh, I was cleaning it,' and it didn't." So usually it's a BS story. But you know what I'm saying, where it has nothing to do with what they're actually doing. And that the question is, or what they're saying on this and why it's becoming a criminal, a rise to the level of criminality, is because all of those measures were not in place. No one adhered to any policies or safety or procedures.

Yeah, or earlier, it should have said, "Hey, hold up here. We're having a series of issues. We need to stop."

Because this all happens. And I mean, I remember being on Camp Pendleton when a Marine was killed, and it was during a trip because, you know, one of the guys left the field for a day, had to go do something, came back. They went from live fire the next day into blank fire training, and he didn't get cleared out properly. And they were just doing a training exercise, and a young Marine who was acting as a role player was literally shot right in the head and killed because the guy shooting him thought he didn't know he had live rounds in that magazine as they were going through the exercise. And so, you know, it happens.

And I sent you one that'll be in the marginal data, Brian, will be in the episode notes. I sent you the one where in Punta Gorda, Florida, they were doing the training exercise, and they enlisted the aid of citizens to come in and be the role players, and one got shot. I mean, listen, so this speaks directly back to the prefrontal cortex and the amygdala. Your prefrontal cortex will tell you we can prevent this by taping blue the magazines that have the blanks and taping red the magazines that contain the live rounds. We'll also make sure that we put a red or yellow, some bright color, muzzle device that's going to determine that, "Hey, this is not only a blank-firing adapter, but it'll make sure that we don't accidentally shoot somebody." And then we do the, Brian, the problem with those is they all reside in the prefrontal cortex. They reside in our executive center. Then once we get out there and we've been shooting for a while and everything is going, you know, and there's a little bit more of a stress response in there, the stress response now inhibits our clear thought. And this is why, listen, you educate for the certain, you train for the uncertain. This is why training needs to take over. Why do you have a range safety officer? Because the range safety officer stays aloof from everybody's emotions and goes, "That's a dangerous act, ceasefire!" And who can call the ceasefire? Everybody. And we talk about those things all the time, Brian, why? Because it's the group that has to save the individual because sometimes the individual drives faster than headlights.

For example, one of Baldwin's earliest arguments was, "Hey, I picked up the gun and it went off." Okay, so we know how unlikely that is. And it's so remarkable. I mean, the story came out that that was within the first couple of days.

Well, he was, he was practicing. I mean, the woman he shot was telling him to do exactly what he was doing at the time.

No, dude, at this...

He was practicing drawing, and she was saying, "Hey, now try this. Let's try it from this angle. Okay, do it over." I mean, yes, which is also insane because she's sitting there telling him what to do, which ended up being the thing that killed her.

Yeah.

So I mean, that's why this case, because I, I can, you know, I could go either way with this, right? Meaning, I could take either side on the case, either for or against Baldwin. I think with the charge, charging him in a sense as because he's like the producer of the film, right? Not just one of the actors. That makes more sense to me than him being as an actor charged, meaning your overall, if he's overall responsible for that film, that includes the safety and well-being of everyone working on that film, right? So I understand that from in terms of negligence, in terms of duty.

But being the person there as an actor, you know, because of course everyone comes out that, "No, you know, as an actor, you're not supposed to..." And that's [bleep], man, that's not their job on the set. Their role there. And this is why the difference between this and let's say like something happening in training or the woman who was shot during the training with a police agency, like it's different because this is a movie. This isn't where people are getting killed and shot. It's acting, it's not real. Yes, you still have a certain duty here, but this person was so highly... Because if you can read, the woman who's the armorer was completely unqualified for this position, and what she was doing, she was completely in over her head. Like, did not have any protocols and procedures in place, basic stuff that anyone would know. Like she just did not follow. So to me, if we're going to hold people responsible, let's hold people responsible. Or are we just going, "Well, Alec Baldwin's a big name, I don't like him either, let's hold him responsible too," because the precedent for that is what bothers me. It's because...

Okay, well, I agree, but this is one of the rare times. If I sell you a gun and you go kill a bunch of people, am I responsible for that?

I mean, that's an argument that's going on right now.

Well, that's what I'm saying. A few times that I think your central argument has to have a caveat because I would disagree with this point only: the law says, "Hot potato. You were holding the gun when it went off, so you're responsible in some fashion." Now, whether that responsibility goes up to a duty, I would say that you have an extra duty of care and caution because you knew or should have known that the thing you're holding is a gun, not a potato.

What if the thing, okay, but if I am firing a little, you know, the little Nerf guns that shoot little darts. Yep. Right? And it's that, and it somehow hits someone in an eye. Yeah, it doesn't kill them, but you're responsible. Permanently disabled or something like that and can't see out of that eye. At no point did I think that Nerf gun would could even...

This weapon system was only meant to fire blank rounds and could not fire a live round. Then how is justifying negligence? Because the idea is that you as the person that's going to hold that gun has the duty to ensure that that thing that you're holding. For example, law, the lawsuits against the automotive industry because they named the thing in the backseat the shelf, the rear shelf in a car, and so some guy in Hamtramck put a bowling ball on it. When they stopped, it came forward, and it killed the person. Now, no reasonable person would ever be able to create that even in a movie script, right? But you're still responsible. So the idea is, was it criminal? That's the difference here.

Well, that's what I'm saying. It was non-criminal, but it's still manslaughter because he knew or should have known that the thing he was holding was a gun, and it had even the most remote possibility to create an injury. And that's why I'm saying that we need to take the Alec Baldwin name out of it, and we need to say that anybody that's holding a tool that could be used in that manner is going to be responsible. But you're driving a car, you're responsible.

Well, of course, but that's if because a car could, you know, kill someone, but if a prop gun wasn't designed to do that, then then why if if you're looking at the...

How did it, though?

Well, yeah, but that's what I'm saying is he didn't know, and he should not have known, right? If I'm sitting here, and you tell me, Greg, you're the expert. You say, "Hey, this is a prop gun, and you can do this, and you can point it at people because this is a movie, and this is what you've been doing your whole career with these things." Like, you're assuming that this thing is safe. You may not even understand how that thing operates. I mean, you know, I mean, you're fighting a logical argument, but it's wrong because you have to take a look. Look, you know what prop guns look like. You've used them before. Most respond on some sort of blowback or internal air, something. And every single one that you've dealt with, you couldn't chamber a real round in it unless it was a real weapon that was using prop style. And right. Yes, right. Okay, so the idea is that, and I'm not arguing with you, I'm telling you what the law says. The law will say in it, like, for example, we talked about this one time before, years ago, the horse, Square D. The horse's name was Twister, and it injured somebody. So they renamed the horse Square D, Square Deal, right? Yeah. And why? Because they got their asses sued because the horse was called Twister, and they asked the guy, "Why'd you call it Twister?" And he goes, "Well, first time a guest got on that horse, unwound." So that guest came and wrote down, "You know, I understand that horses are inherently dangerous, but I still want to ride the horse at your ranch." They went and they said, "Here's your horse, Twister." And that guest still got on it, and the argument was, "Well, if you knew, I should have known that it's a horse, and it's dangerous by nature, and you still got on a horse named Twister." You get the way that argument goes? That's why they have to go in front of a jury trial because the law is explicit, and it's clear. And Baldwin was, I would counter part of your argument, which is a very well-made argument, and you sound like a defense attorney. I would counter part of it by saying Baldwin should have known better because he was on sets where [bleep] was tight, and it went well. He was, what is it, Jack Ryan for a lot of those movies where there were shoot-em-ups all the time in that. If you drive your car past the speed limit and you haven't checked the oil and you haven't inflated the tires, and your car goes wrong, it's not the manufacturer that's the fault, it's you. And what he did is he took what he thought to be a prop weapon. And look, even pointing it at another human being, you're going to say, "Yeah, but that was routine." Routine doesn't mean it was okay. That's all my point is. You see what I'm trying to say? So here is a good cautionary tale that look, these things happen. Brian, we talked about it the other day, you and I offline. If you're in a hotel, you should expect that when you're laying in bed, a round can come winging through the floor and kill you, through the ceiling and kill you, or through one of the walls and kill you. Why? Because those places become hotbeds of shootouts. We know that. And over-penetration in those rooms is something that's common. Now, do I have to worry about that every day? Well, every day I'm in a hotel, I should consider it at least. Now, what about gas stations? There were 80 to 100 rounds fired just a couple of days ago in that California gas station shooting. All of those rounds had her name on it, Brian. They all went somewhere. Do you get what I'm trying to say? So we, you and I, as members of the public, have to be cautious, more cautious when we're in an area where a shooting might...

I guess then my, you know, and I understand what you're arguing legally here, but you know, it's still obviously it would be up to a jury. And I think there's a different set of circumstances for the woman who is the armorer there and for the actor firing the weapon. I really...

Absolutely, completely different. Absolutely.

Why are they being charged with the same crime? And so the idea is, and there, and this is the way, right? This is also why I said I could understand if Alec Baldwin was overall in charge, producer of this, that you're holding him liable, and maybe obviously in civil trial or some overall negligence, I get that, because then you're saying, "If you're overall in charge, it's your, you have a duty." That I understand. But it's almost if we keep spread-loading the responsibility for all these things that happen, you know. Right. I'm all about accountability, holding the person accountable, but I don't like doing the second and third and fourth, you know, relationship to that and they should have done something too. It's like, but it's not...

I agree with your central argument. I feel like I would ask you to consider the term "much." And we don't want overreach. You're exactly right. I absolutely, not flashlight. So but I want you to take a look at the term "felony stupid." So one of the ways that you determine how bad an incident is, is it felony stupid? Friend, would you agree that pointing a gun at anybody anytime, one of the first rules you learn is a laser rule, "treat every weapon as if it's loaded"? So your argument that it's a prop gun and it was handled by other people, it's a well-taken argument, but it doesn't hold water when it comes down to the end that Baldwin knew or should have known that there was a greater risk of harm when he took a prop gun with some sort of chemical charge that was in it and aimed it at any part of his or another human's body. And that's what made it criminal negligent. He's not a criminal when it comes to the point that he intentionally did.

No, and I get that. And again, I agree, and it's a logical argument. What I'm saying is that because of the context of the situation, and what about Halyna Hutchins? She was telling him to do what he did. She was telling him, "Yes, point it here now."

Okay, so now you're going into civil territory.

Well, what I'm saying is that, because would we say when it comes up? But here's the thing. Here's the thing.

Is standing in front of a loaded weapon...

Well, that's why I'm responsible.

Well, so, and she was, nobody wants to say that. So she, she bears partial responsibility in this as well, but you can't...

Yeah, I mean, it's like, but everyone goes, "Well, she's the victim." Yeah, but that doesn't lessen his, that doesn't diminish his responsibility there. Equally, if she had not been there, she would have not gotten shot. If she would have said, "This is reckless and dangerous," she would have not gotten shot. But she's not the only reason it happened. Okay, there's a line of people that stood up and said, "I checked this weapon. Here's your weapon. Alec, hold the weapon." And that's what the law says. The law says he's like, "There's no beating, he knew better, I clearly screwed up. And I, because I announced that everything was fine when it clearly was not, therefore I am negligent." There is no fighting that there were, there was just, but because of he said and did what he did, if he had just handed the gun over to him, it would have been a different case. But you know what I'm saying, he would have had more of a level playing ground.

I absolutely agree with that. You get what I'm trying to say? He would have still been charged to some degree, right? Because anyway, look, it's like a chain of custody argument, who handled that gun? And the civil lawsuit is going to go all the way back to the manufacturer. The manufacturer is going to say it wasn't a prop gun, it was a real gun because you could put both types of ammo. You see the legal argument? But I'm saying just at its base, anytime you pick up something where a projectile is coming out of it, even a pop gun, you should know you shouldn't aim it at somebody because you might hurt that person. And that's what the law is saying. The law is saying, "Look, let's be fair, let's be equitable, somebody's dead here, so somebody has to be accountable." You said that perfectly in your argument. The idea of it not being as fair for one than the other, that's for a bench trial or a jury. And then the Supreme Court to come in and say, "Hey, you're overstepped." And that's what you're talking about. You're talking about overreach or overstepping the bounds. But I think here the investigation in, and the special prosecutor Andrea (Reeb) came to a reasonable conclusion saying, "Had it not been for, if not for these factors in this sloppy set, she'd be alive today."

Well, that, and they didn't include the name of the victim, but I agree with you that the victim bears some responsibility, and this isn't victim blaming. It's, if you're standing there and somebody at a party starts waving around a gun, you have a new responsibility to leave or say, "Stop." Right? Yes. Point it at me. And that person ends up shooting you, like you, you're, you are obviously very much part of that, this situation. You have to be added to the equation. You know what I mean? You, like, you've added a level of complexity that has to be accounted for.

I totally agree with you, buddy.

And so, yeah, and that's just kind of my argument. Obviously, you know, I want, one, you have to balance one, people have to be held responsible for their actions. And then, yeah, you have to set a precedent going forward specifically for that industry too, you know, to change how things are done. You're going to get all the, you know, pundits coming on or people commenting like, "Oh, we never do that. That's not how it works on any set I've ever been on," which is [bleep]. You know, they're all, it really is. They've all done shitty, stupid, reckless things before too. So, I mean, you know, that, that, that, but, but what, what it is, my concern is just the legal precedent for this. If all of those people, I agree with you, are charged or, or, you know, held accountable, then that now becomes something that going forward, I don't like the spread of responsibility. I like starting with the person that is directly responsible for it should be held accountable. It's like the school shootings, you know what I mean? Like, how about we start with the person who walked into school and murdered a bunch of people? Let's start there.

Accountable exactly everything, but let's...

No, no, your, your logic is sound, but let's not make a quantum leap of logic in this specific incident because here everybody is responsible. Everybody. So if you were a financier on this film, you have the duty to ensure that the film is going to be legally compliant. If you funded this film, you by law should have sent somebody to the scene to check out the incident or the shoot location before the incident to say, "Hey, these [bleep] are being reckless and carefree out here." Do you understand what I'm trying to say? Had, but that there's basic protocols.

Well, that's right. I wouldn't say that. No. As an investor in a movie, no, it's not your role to do that. You, there's someone there who's responsible for doing that. Now you should understand that it's your money, you're responsible. Yeah, but that's that's mine. I don't think you bear anything.

That's what the law says, responsibility. If you invest in something, of course you do. Someone else on this situation that's a, that's a bit...

Absolutely. An investor in the movie is accountable. Why wouldn't you sue the investor for the movie? Because the investor of the movie understands that it's not criminal. That's the difference. Yeah, that's the exact difference that I'm trying to...

You can make a single case out of the, you know, person who delivered the [bleep] sandwiches that day and didn't report the fact that they saw a live round on the ground. I mean, I don't know, like there's, you can go, because civil you can get it where I'm talking about criminally here. Because that, that's, that's, you know, they're supposed to be people who are responsible for that. If they didn't do their job, then they need to be held responsible for not doing their job. Baldwin was responsible for pulling the trigger. Baldwin knew or should have known that weapons have projectiles. I'm just saying, look, I agree with you, the standard from civil to criminal is different, but I'm saying that criminal negligence here was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or the prosecutor would have never made those statements and brought [charges] before.

I think that there's also a political angle here where people want to, you know, beat their chest and say, "Hey, look, we're going after Baldwin," or something that's emotional, and we got to take that out.

Yeah, well, there's, there's going to be people, of course, like, that's, that's going to be, you know, "[Bleep] this guy." I know you think you can get it. Yeah, but Hollywood too, they hate Hollywood, then they hate guns. Okay, so...

Right. Yeah.

Those are, they certainly don't help in any manner with the case. Just look at what, what actually could, and I agree, because all the reports just openly that I've read in any reporting of what people on the crew said and we discussed it, but there was clearly that this, and this is why criminal charges were brought. This wasn't some incident where there was some odd, because I think you brought up the one with like Brandon Lee, and that was not even a live round in there, was something. Yeah, yeah. And so, and that, that's not what happened here. Where everything else was fine. This was, there was all kinds of things going on with this during the filming of this movie, and people were reporting it, and people were saying to the people in charge, to the producer, saying, "Hey, this is going on. We're going to be out of here, you know, this is dangerous. You're playing fast and loose." So when those things occur, oh, I, I, you can't deny any of that. I mean, that, that's, we see that how many times with different cases that we saw where people like, "How does this happen?" And we go, "Well, this is how it happens when you have a culture of no one taking responsibility and no safety measures in place." You're, you're going, it's, it's a matter of time before something catastrophic happens. It's not, it's not, it's not if, it's when.

No, no, and you're, Brian, I don't want you to get me wrong, you're exactly right. So let's approach a different argument going in the same direction from physiology and psychology. So you know that I'm not a huge fan of the appendix carry, and the reason is that I've seen a couple of incidents where people seated in their police car have shot themselves, right? And the idea that when they're standing or seated or crouching or just getting out of the vehicle, the muzzle is oriented towards their groin, which has a lot of significance. There's a femoral artery, you get what I'm trying to say? And in some instances, I've seen it in internal organs. And you know what, with the tactical thigh holster and also drawing from within a car, I've seen a bunch of people shoot a car, but none of those people shot themselves. So my simple argument is not based on you being a subject matter expert, right, quick-drawing, shooting and everything else. It's just from what I've seen, I can tell you I saw more injuries and fatalities from this than from that. Now, somebody could come in and go, "Yeah, but Greg, this has only been around for this long, and because of this long duration, these outnumber these." But that's not my argument, right? Yeah. You see it. So this is our, this is the thing is we're closely aligned on Rust, but our arguments start to go off here with level of responsibility, and I agree with your argument, but I'm telling you that the law in this instance is going to be a cold, harsh mistress.

Oh, if, if, yeah, yeah. Because when it, like I'll tell you right now, they better go for a jury because if they went to a bench trial, it would be very decisive. And so what's the chance on a jury, they put Baldwin up there, and everybody goes, "Oh, it's him." That's our central argument. You can't, you, I, I'm a... Yes, so if you were to ask me to take, you know, to bet on this trial, you know, it's not looking good for Alec Baldwin. However, anything can happen with a jury. And two, I, I think, if you, you know, to make some sort of prediction, I, I think he's going to be held criminally liable. I think he's going to be found guilty in some small charge. I, I think it's, I think what they end up, what should he say, or the sentencing? What do you mean in the court? What he should do in the criminal, felonious part of the trial, adding two felonies and a misdemeanor.

I know what your prediction is because we've talked about this before, but I will go on record saying that if he doesn't take a plea, he's a [bleep]. And we won't have anything to do with the civil case. And in the civil case, I think he should say, "Mea culpa, here's the payout," and work on that. Yeah, because Brian, in this instance, I think the smartest guy was the AP, the assistant producer, that said, "Yeah, I'll plead to a misdemeanor." And you know why? Because culpability-wise, okay, the idea is that I don't think, well, even though Baldwin has a great argument, and you've emboldened his argument a number of times today, I think at the end of the day, the law is going to look at it and go very binary, you know, guilty, not guilty. And if he gets guilty of a felony, even if they drop it down to a lower lesser included offense for that manslaughter, it's still a felony, Brian. Fourth-degree felony is not a big felony, right? But it's a, but it's still a felony. And then big F means something. That means jail time over a year, you know, and we're not talking about probation. And listen, they can give him credit, and you do credit for time served, meaning they can give him credit for psychological time served because you brought up a great point, this devastated him. Yeah. Not a family of the poor Ukrainian AP is not going to give a damn about that, they want justice for their daughter, of course.

But you also pointed out that the daughter should have known. You know, look, if it was the daughter's first film, I think it's a different argument, but she was on miniseries, she was on other film sets, she had done other short films. The more you know, the more you should have thrown in the towel and said, "Something's wrong here. Doesn't pass the smell test. We're not..." Because weapons, Brian, weapons kill people. That's why they're called weapons.

You know, in this case, I agree. I mean, obviously, you know, his attorneys think that they can, they can fight it, and, and win with the jury.

Attorneys do, because they get paid, right?

Right. And, and an attorney doesn't work for society unless they're a prosecutor. Attorney defense attorney works specifically for you to get you off on the, on the charges. And right now, some defense attorneys listening and going, "Hey, [bleep] you." Well, do me a favor, get on the call and you explain what your role is, because your role is in fact to do that. You're saying, "Yes, though we're preserving the law for all good people to set the precedent." Yeah, but in this case, what you're doing is you're gambling that the jury trial will find Baldwin guilty of a lesser included offense because it's Baldwin. And that's just as [bleep] as charging Baldwin because he's Baldwin. You see what I'm trying to say? We can't, we can't win there. You know what you want? I, I would predict this too, Brian. I think at the end of the day, you want this to make shoots safer, meaning film shoots. Yeah. And, and the way to make it safer, somebody's got to pay, and somebody's got to learn from this event. If, if we can get there without somebody spending time in jail, I'm okay with that, but we got to get there, you know.

Well, at the end, and and that's it, that's the thing is that obviously there was no intent behind this. And so, yes, but people need to be held responsible. It was a tragedy, but it was a completely preventable tragedy. And so, what's that? If you fall asleep at the wheel of your car and, and that's okay, and kill somebody? But that, right? And that's, but that's also part of my reason about my concern about the scope and precedent, because I believe holding people accountable 100%. But I don't like when that scope gets so big that now it's everyone's fault, because if it's everyone's fault, then it's no one's fault.

But it is, and that's a great argument, by the way.

And, and, and that's, that's always my concern with any of these is, is, is this the best way to hold someone accountable or, or is this going to change something in that industry to make it more safer? That should be the goal right now. Is this one, I totally agree, will this help achieve that goal? I, I don't know. I don't see a clear line there. You know, if I think on the civil side that stuff happens, that's why you see people sue auto manufacturers or sue, you know, the McDonald's or sue this, because it, that's how they, that's, we live in a litigious society, and I don't mean that in a negative manner, actually, because we're not, someone can sue McDonald's rather than going and [bleep] blowing up a McDonald's, you know what I'm saying? And that's a good thing. You need to hold them accountable, and then they change what they do in their practice.

Voting, yeah. Our ways of adjusting things. And so legal ways, they're non-violent ways.

Yeah. And so that, that was my only concern with, was there some other motivation behind it? But it's clear, it's very clear the facts of the case of what was going on in this movie set. I mean, it doesn't take much research to dig into these articles and see what the people on the set said, see just what the evidence it is now. And there's likely more coming out at trial, right? Of the testimony and what they found on the set. And it was egregious in terms of just a total lack of safety. So it was, you know, once that starts to occur, these situations become inevitable. And that happens, you know, which is why we brought up the examples on a personal level. Even folks who deal with firearms all the time. I mean, this is a movie set. I've seen it in all kinds of situations, and, and, you know, and this is with professionals whose job was involved in one of the parts to their job was they were carrying a gun and trained in that weapon system. And those things happen, and they happen, you know, for the same reason: a lack of overall. It's, it's, it's always, that's why I like, you know, the Marine Corps always called it a negligent discharge because you're negligent, like meaning you did something wrong.

And there's an argument there. There's a great point because there's an argument there that's brewing in the police community because a lot of coppers now were former soldiers, not as much back when I was in it, it was a really odd blend. And coppers are saying, "Never call it a negligent discharge because you're immediately saying you were negligent with your firearm in this incident, so it's an accidental." Yeah, that's the Army term for it, I think. Thank you. But listen, with you, they call it, he's holding somebody accountable, exactly. Look, we would not be talking about this if it wasn't Baldwin. If this was a high school play where a prop went wrong and killed somebody, we wouldn't be talking about it. It would already be a local article, and it would be done. But we're talking about trained, veteran, experienced personnel that were cutting corners because it appears as though they were taking large chances with safety that they shouldn't have been taking. So at the end of the day, somebody's got to be responsible for it because it was a duty to hold them to a higher standard. And guess what, when that wheel stops, when you're playing spin the bottle, if you're playing all in, you got to kiss whoever that bottle stops you. And that's where we are. And this was, and I just invoked the "felony stupid" rule, it was felony stupid to do this.

Brian, you and I on LinkedIn sometimes have seen situations where people are grab-assing around and chasing each other in vehicles, and they're all calling it training. It's training until somebody gets killed or injured. Yeah. And then all of a sudden you hold it up and you go, "What was this?" "Well, we were making, what was all of this? We're making, making a video for Instagram and our cool guy clips." Yep. And I know that stuff happens more than people think because they don't, they, they somehow forget to upload those videos where it goes, "Happy Head." Gender reveal party. Yeah. They result in death and injury. Come on.

Oh, yeah. Or there's your "happy head," tens of millions of dollars of fire damage. Yeah.

Absolutely. Think about that for a minute, you know. So that's all we're saying. And, and look, I don't, I rarely disagree with Brian's logical outcome. This is completely personality-based only because I've seen how a couple of these cases have gone before. And so I was in the trenches to see the fight. And Brian is speaking of the logical likely outcome that he would suspect. And I'm telling you, there's the, and you said it yourself, Brian, juries can go anything. You can go either way. If we were talking a bench trial, we would have been done talking 30 minutes ago, but we're both talking about a jury style. And then when you go to civil, God only knows, yeah.

And that again, that's going to be completely different and but not that yeah, I'm sure, I'm sure, you know, Baldwin will likely just settle that out of court, you know what I'm saying? I'm, if I'm, I'm assuming if he hasn't done something like that already. I, I mean, he was good friends with this woman that he killed. You know what I'm saying? He, he did know her and her family and everyone, of course.

And again, Brian, there was no intent. Okay, so, so, so the, if, if they had had a previous argument or if he had been recklessly... Oh, yeah, that was again, the trajectory changes everything. It's Baldwin, it's Baldwin who, who had some of the funniest skits on Saturday Night Live. You get what I'm trying to say? And he was, no offense, he was a big buffoon that, yeah, we all do that, though, Brian. Yes, we all go up and we say, "Hey, I'm going to give the toast at the wedding, so I'm going to stand on that shitty chair over there and hold up my glass." And we do it, and we fall down and we make an ass of ourselves, but it didn't kill somebody, and that wasn't criminal because the amount of negligence that I did was just self-inflicted. That's what I'm trying to say here is that it caused somebody's death. And like you said, right from the beginning, somebody must be held accountable.

Yeah, well, I think that's, that's kind of a good, good spot to sort of end on. Again, there's, we'll see how this plays out or if anything else comes to light. Some of this stuff, and I obviously the charges were just brought in the last week or two, I think. And, and so, you know, tell us what you think is going to happen. We'd love to hear it.

Yeah, yeah. And, and you know, stay tuned. We also have more on the Patreon side. We have our textbook coming out here pretty soon. So we're going to be using that in a number of ways for those who, who come to our in-person courses and a few other places. We'll, yeah, we'll be available very soon, waiting on them, the folks at McGraw-Hill on just a couple of things to get, I don't know, cross the T's, dot the lowercase J's. I'm not, I'm not sure. Well, they're finishing up their part of it, and then it's actually, and that'll be out. But we do appreciate everyone for listening. And then for some of you who reach out, please, please continue to do so. Ask questions, stuff that you want us to cover or talk about because we'd like to make sure that we're giving everyone here who's listening what they need and, and, and, you know, spreading, spreading the knowledge. So I appreciate everyone doing anything. And I appreciate everyone tuning in. And it's Friday that we're recording this, Greg. And as any good attorney will tell you, it's "Shut the [bleep] up Friday." And exactly. Effort that comes from some very, very smart and logical people. Yeah, so follow that rule all the time. Yeah, I want an attorney put me in my jail cell. Let me go. I'm not saying a word. Yeah, I know. Yeah, exactly. That's the best way to do this stuff, too. Alright, I think that, that, that's good, Greg. Thanks everyone again for tuning in. Don't forget that training changes behavior.