An actor, not an armorer

Re “Baldwin to face his ‘Rust’ reckoning,” March 8

A New Mexico jury found “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the accidental shooting of the film’s cinematographer.

The guilty verdict against her is, in my opinion as a retired attorney, the best thing that could have happened for “Rust” producer and actor Alec Baldwin, who has also been charged with involuntary manslaughter.

If the armorer was criminally negligent and handed Baldwin a gun that had live ammunition, then how could he be held responsible? Under common industry practice, he had a right to rely upon the armorer in believing the weapon to be harmless.

The issue as to whether he pulled the trigger or cocked the gun and it went off accidentally is irrelevant since, either way, an unloaded gun would have done no harm.

A jury should have no trouble acquitting Baldwin of involuntary manslaughter since another person working on the set of “Rust” has already been found guilty of causing the tragedy.

Barry Rubin Beverly Hills

It’s more than a bit disingenuous to suggest that Baldwin’s criminal liability depends on claiming special rights as an “actor” or maybe because it’s harder to convict a star than an unknown movie industry worker.

It’s not the actor’s job to re-check a prop handed to them, and re-checking every prop might even be dangerous.

As a simple analogy, police officers are sometimes indicted for using a gun when using a Taser would have been appropriate.

Different laws apply, but police officers would never be criminally charged or even reprimanded for using a Taser that malfunctioned or somehow was overcharged and became lethal. It’s not even remotely an expectation in their job description.

So, it’s no surprise that SAG-AFTRA, the actors union, is supporting Baldwin and by extension every other person who might be in a similar situation on the job.

Les Hall Santa Ana