Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to know how Hilaria is explaining it to the kids

she is in her GLORY prancing in front of the paps. Her best nightmare ❤️ the drama.

I do feel bad for the children, as they do seem to love their dad & he loves them. it's going to be very tough on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to know how Hilaria is explaining it to the kids

Easy: mis amores, papa is in some, hmm, how do you say... legal trouble. I think those words are correct in English. It's not my native tongue, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to know how Hilaria is explaining it to the kids

she is in her GLORY prancing in front of the paps. Her best nightmare ❤️ the drama.

I do feel bad for the children, as they do seem to love their dad & he loves them. it's going to be very tough on them.

I’d bet big bucks she dramatically faints in court if he’s found guilty and shows up to his sentencing wearing one of the Spanish style black lace mourning veils.

[Anonymous]

Ughhh DH is so upset about this. He was really pulling for Alec to not end up a scape goat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know why it took this long, but it seems like it was the obvious course of action all along. I can only imagine the evidence must be damning, because otherwise they wouldn’t have brought charges.

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

This.

He should have been arrested from Day 1.

It was either manslaughter or murder, but it was clear that 1) there was a dead person and 2) Baldwin was the shooter

No it is more complicated. He is responsible but it is not like he was driving a car drunk and hit someone. He should have been more careful but a jury will take into consideration that he didn’t know the gun was armed. One thing that will not be helpful and I found out later is that you are never supposed to actually point at someone in a shot-editing makes it look real. Apparently he was asked to point for the shot but he should have declined. I do not think putting him in jail is helpful. I am sure he will live with this forever.

Is it SOP for an actor to check the gun? If not, I don’t think it’s his fault. If yes, then he was being negligent.

To me, it’s comparable to the difference between driving a car while being distracted by your phone and hitting someone vs. driving without any distractions and still hitting them. You most likely won’t be charged in the latter cases and that’s because they can’t prove negligence. Accidents do happen and people aren’t punished for true accidents where they did nothing wrong (meaning, no drinking, no drugs, no phone, no speeding, etc.).

So if it is not SOP for actors to check the gun, I don’t see how he is at fault for negligence.

It is the responsibility of the person holding the gun to confirm it is not loaded. Period. That is gun safety 101. It is irrelevant who else said it is ok first.

This would be like him driving drunk and his excuse being "They told me I was not drunk, so I drove"

This doesn’t make sense. Sounds like it is not SOP for actors to check their guns though.

No gun owner is going to find that reasonable. Even just a veteran who has been though basic would laugh at that excuse

Real gun owners will think it was a reasonable mistake.

The only gun owners who would find it reasonable are the ones that manage to shoot themselves cleaning unloaded guns

That’s exactly who real gun owners are, or it’s their brother or cousin who did something like that.

They see it as a reasonable mistake.

A non gun owner thinks WTF you need to be able to take anpart and put together a gun blindfolded before you get a license.

Gun owners think oh well sh!t happens.

No, real gun owners think you need to treat every gun like it is loaded, and not point them at people, because that is what you’re taught.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The reality is that there was a serious problem with safety on that set and Alec and the armorer were both responsible to a degree for the safety, and Alec was certainly responsible for pulling the trigger.

The reason why there is even an armored is because there is a consensus that having a gun, even with dummy bullets or blacks, is hugely risky on a set. If it wasn’t there would be no need for safety protocol. The safety protocol protects everyone, not just a potential victim that is shot. It also protects the bystanders and the gun holder too! It is risky to be handling a gun, loaded or not, just because it is inherently a killing machine and weapon. An actor/actress puts themselves at risk of injuring and killing some one when they handle a gun. Again, hence the reason for an armorer and safety protocols.

What happened here is that those safety protocols were not revered to a T and the consequence is on everyone. A women is dead, someone else suffered an injury, someone else killed someone (it doesn’t matter what you call it in the court of law he killed her, accident or not). This was all avoidable.

“It is risky to be handling a gun, loaded or not, just because it is inherently a killing machine and weapon.”

An firearm verified to be unloaded essentially is a paperweight, and no more a weapon or “killing machine” than a heavy ashtray.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

+1. I don't like Baldwin but he clearly was not at fault. He was clearly told that it was a cold gun. He had no reason to believe otherwise. They're just going after a big fish, as PP says, to get press.

If I hand you a gun and say it's not loaded, would you put it to your own head, or would you verify first? the person that fired the gun is always the one responsible.

If it’s a prop gun I probably wouldn’t check. A real gun is another story.

Well this was not a prop gun

Yes, this was a prop gun.

It was a “real gun” being used as a prop. It was capable of chambering and discharging live ammunition, as this sad event demonstrates.

[Anonymous]

Is killer Alec in jail or was he allowed to sleep home like most Dem abusers and killers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here. It's frustrating to see the cycle of coverage without any serious independent analysis of whether this prosecutor could secure a conviction. In my view, it's a chargeable case, but securing a conviction is very unlikely. The prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally negligent with respect to the death. That's a very high standard, higher than ordinary negligence.

One theory of the case is that he should be liable because he pointed and shot the gun. But everybody agrees that he genuinely thought the gun was unloaded and entirely safe—they were rehearsing. In other words, he didn't think he was holding a deadly weapon at all, just a piece of metal. Gun safety adages are good and important, and I entirely agree with the principles about never pointing a weapon at anyone and verifying a weapon is unloaded yourself. But was failing to follow those principles, when he had been specifically told the gun was safe, could not check it himself, was pointing as directed for the scene, and didn't believe he was pulling the trigger, so outrageously unreasonable? In effect, a conviction here would convert gun safety best practices into criminal law under pretty much all circumstances. That would be unprecedented.

The other theory of the case is that he was negligent as a producer. But he was one of several producers and the production hired a professional to handle gun safety. It's tough to believe that his oversight of the production, under the circumstances, was so outrageously bad as to constitute a crime. The usual rule is that if there's intervening negligence, you're not liable.

I do think there's a much better case for the charge about negligence with respect to handling the gun (rather than the death). That's what someone already pleaded guilty to.

This is the correct answer. For those of you who can't see it, why don't you pretend that Chris Pratt accidentally shot someone on The Terminal List or Kevin Costner accidentally shot someone on Yellowstone. Do the different politics of the actor/show help put things into perspective for you? Also, anyone with entertainment industry knowledge will know that big-name actors often secure producer credits as part of their compensation for appearing in the movie or show. Just like Sarah Jessica Parker wasn't really the mastermind behind Sex and The City - she is an actor who appeared in it and, once the show was a hit, had lots of leverage so that her agent/lawyer could get her an executive producer credit on the show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do they use real guns on movie sets? Seems crazy!

The gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds. However, even dummy rounds can cause serious injuries. So, even then the gun should not be pointed at someone. Camera angles should be employed to protect everyone on the set. If that has happened here, the live round wouldn't have hit anyone. Even if he had used dummy rounds, his behavior was negligent.

https://m.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/hollywood-news/explainer-everything-you-need-to-know-about-prop-guns-on-movie-sets-and-how-they-work.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here. It's frustrating to see the cycle of coverage without any serious independent analysis of whether this prosecutor could secure a conviction. In my view, it's a chargeable case, but securing a conviction is very unlikely. The prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally negligent with respect to the death. That's a very high standard, higher than ordinary negligence.

One theory of the case is that he should be liable because he pointed and shot the gun. But everybody agrees that he genuinely thought the gun was unloaded and entirely safe—they were rehearsing. In other words, he didn't think he was holding a deadly weapon at all, just a piece of metal. Gun safety adages are good and important, and I entirely agree with the principles about never pointing a weapon at anyone and verifying a weapon is unloaded yourself. But was failing to follow those principles, when he had been specifically told the gun was safe, could not check it himself, was pointing as directed for the scene, and didn't believe he was pulling the trigger, so outrageously unreasonable? In effect, a conviction here would convert gun safety best practices into criminal law under pretty much all circumstances. That would be unprecedented.

The other theory of the case is that he was negligent as a producer. But he was one of several producers and the production hired a professional to handle gun safety. It's tough to believe that his oversight of the production, under the circumstances, was so outrageously bad as to constitute a crime. The usual rule is that if there's intervening negligence, you're not liable.

I do think there's a much better case for the charge about negligence with respect to handling the gun (rather than the death). That's what someone already pleaded guilty to.

This is the correct answer. For those of you who can't see it, why don't you pretend that Chris Pratt accidentally shot someone on The Terminal List or Kevin Costner accidentally shot someone on Yellowstone. Do the different politics of the actor/show help put things into perspective for you? Also, anyone with entertainment industry knowledge will know that big-name actors often secure producer credits as part of their compensation for appearing in the movie or show. Just like Sarah Jessica Parker wasn't really the mastermind behind Sex and The City - she is an actor who appeared in it and, once the show was a hit, had lots of leverage so that her agent/lawyer could get her an executive producer credit on the show.

So getting additional credit shouldn't come with additional responsibility? Nice.

[Anonymous]

I think Baldwin has a reasonable argument that he was entitled to rely on the professionals on the set responsible for firearm safety. As to his assertion that he didn’t pull the trigger, I think a lot depends on how one defines “pull.” The particular firearm involved will discharge if it is loaded with live ammunition, the trigger is held to the rear (in what normally would be its resting position) and the hammer is pulled back and released. Whether Baldwin had a duty to know that is an additional question. I expect his defense to produce extremely experienced and persuasive experts to refute the assertion that he was negligent. A lot will depend on the jury. New Mexico is an interesting place. Hardscrabble cowboys and ranchers along with left wing art lovers. Will the gun-toting ranchers hold him responsible because he violated all of the basic rules of gun safety? Will the gun-hating liberals give him a pass because he’s one of their own?

If the production assistant somehow interferes with the proper care and safety protocols for the firearm, that may help the so-called “armorer.” But the idea that a professional would be using the same guns on set with blanks and later for target practice with live ammunition, and then bringing them back on set is really scary. I think she’s toast.

[Anonymous]

It makes total sense. He KILLED someone. And the armorer deserves to be severely punished - it was her job to make shooting safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here. It's frustrating to see the cycle of coverage without any serious independent analysis of whether this prosecutor could secure a conviction. In my view, it's a chargeable case, but securing a conviction is very unlikely. The prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally negligent with respect to the death. That's a very high standard, higher than ordinary negligence.

One theory of the case is that he should be liable because he pointed and shot the gun. But everybody agrees that he genuinely thought the gun was unloaded and entirely safe—they were rehearsing. In other words, he didn't think he was holding a deadly weapon at all, just a piece of metal. Gun safety adages are good and important, and I entirely agree with the principles about never pointing a weapon at anyone and verifying a weapon is unloaded yourself. But was failing to follow those principles, when he had been specifically told the gun was safe, could not check it himself, was pointing as directed for the scene, and didn't believe he was pulling the trigger, so outrageously unreasonable? In effect, a conviction here would convert gun safety best practices into criminal law under pretty much all circumstances. That would be unprecedented.

The other theory of the case is that he was negligent as a producer. But he was one of several producers and the production hired a professional to handle gun safety. It's tough to believe that his oversight of the production, under the circumstances, was so outrageously bad as to constitute a crime. The usual rule is that if there's intervening negligence, you're not liable.

I do think there's a much better case for the charge about negligence with respect to handling the gun (rather than the death). That's what someone already pleaded guilty to.

This is the correct answer. For those of you who can't see it, why don't you pretend that Chris Pratt accidentally shot someone on The Terminal List or Kevin Costner accidentally shot someone on Yellowstone. Do the different politics of the actor/show help put things into perspective for you? Also, anyone with entertainment industry knowledge will know that big-name actors often secure producer credits as part of their compensation for appearing in the movie or show. Just like Sarah Jessica Parker wasn't really the mastermind behind Sex and The City - she is an actor who appeared in it and, once the show was a hit, had lots of leverage so that her agent/lawyer could get her an executive producer credit on the show.

So getting additional credit shouldn't come with additional responsibility? Nice.

Additional financial responsibility. He was not in charge of hiring the armorer, or firing her.

[Anonymous]

This seems fine, he’ll probably get probation and they’ll make the point that actors are responsible for checking the gun even if the gun guy says they’re good to go. If that shouldn’t be the law, they’ll have to change the law, because it sounds like that’s the point of the charges. I don’t think they’re out for Alec Baldwin’s scalp.