Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Angelina Jolie has weighed in with not subtle shade at Alec.https://pagesix.com/2021/11/04/angelina-jolie-on-alec-baldwin-shooting-im-careful-with-guns/

Alec came after Weinstein's victims very aggressively, and made a lot of enemies. I doubt Angie will be the last to kick him while he's down.

There but for the grace of God go she.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrific. I hope he pays dearly for this and faces jailtime. Cant stand how he's tried to make himself into a victim in all of this as well, taking attention away from the woman he killed.

Ooh, careful! You'll get reported for wrongthink. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1010902.page

Wow, that is crazy. People arent allowed to talk bad about Alec Baldwin now, lol? This place just gets stranger all the time.

I’m the person that reported that other poster. To be clear, I can’t stand Alec Baldwin (as a person—some of his acting jobs were quite good). But there was one poster that just get repeating that the person who pulls the trigger bears the responsibility, which was very simplistic and very repetitive.
Personally I don’t think there’s any grounds to criminal charge him. My guess is that there will be no criminal charges for anyone, unless they have some witness showing who brought the live rounds on set and put them in the gun or box. Personally I think the armorers story that she couldn’t tell the difference between a live round and a blank when she loaded the guns sounds like she didn’t know what she was doing and wasn’t competent for the job.

It is not just one person posting that, it's anyone that understands gun safety. Any person holding a gun, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger is the person responsible. "Someone else told me it was not loaded" is not a defense.

DP and not the one to whom you're responding. What that PP who reported posts doesn't say is that the many posts repeatedly saying "any person holding a gun...etc." are not at all correct in terms of how firearms and firearms handling and responsibility works on a film or television set.

I posted much earlier about this but some posters here just do not care about the actual and factual context of THIS specific incident.

You and other posters keep saying "the one with the gun is the one responsible, criminal charges, etc." are acting as if this were a shooting at a range, or on the street, or anywhere but where it actually was: On a film set, following protocols used on films and television sets forever. The AD even said aloud that the gun was cold --which is the correct procedure when handing off a firearm to an actor. Were there massive, horrible, unforgiveable errors made? Absolutely. Should someone be charged with something? Very probably and quite likely. It should be the assistant director, who had no business touching the gun, and the armorer.

If you can bother yourself to learn how firearms work in productions, read this excellent article:
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-halyna-hutchins-alec-baldwin-propmasters-armorers-1235096221/

The article explains why actors are not supposed to be responsible for the firearms they are handed. This quote by a film industry armorer about how actors and arms work sums it up:

“The reason that Alec Baldwin did not check the firearm is because… he’s not given time to do so. It is an understood that when the firearm is handed to him it is in proper working order. And that is the responsibility of the armorer prop master, whoever is in control of the firearms on set. So all the armchair quarterbacks that are sitting back and saying well, Alec Baldwin is responsible because he didn’t check the gun, that’s not the procedure that’s used on set — so stop with that. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the armorer or prop master or whomever is on set in control and responsible for those firearms being available and made ready for each scene.”

I understand the points made about the production rules. I’m curious how a court would view it. Would they follow the law that person shooting gun is responsible or consider rules created up by movie production crews as affecting that?

One one aide, we have society’s laws. On the other side, we have movie production guidelines, processes, and rules.

Overall, I think it’s silly and dangerous to use real guns on set.

[Anonymous]

Film sets don’t make their own rules. If Alec Baldwin would’ve checked the gun seeing as he’s the guy that actually shot the woman none of this would’ve happened. Again this other guy told me it wasn’t loaded is not a defense. Why do you think film sets get to make up some magic rules that protect them from negligence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Film sets don’t make their own rules. If Alec Baldwin would’ve checked the gun seeing as he’s the guy that actually shot the woman none of this would’ve happened. Again this other guy told me it wasn’t loaded is not a defense. Why do you think film sets get to make up some magic rules that protect them from negligence?

Negligence is a separate question. Posters are saying that Baldwin should go to jail for murder. It is a defense to murder for him to think the gun is unloaded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film sets don’t make their own rules. If Alec Baldwin would’ve checked the gun seeing as he’s the guy that actually shot the woman none of this would’ve happened. Again this other guy told me it wasn’t loaded is not a defense. Why do you think film sets get to make up some magic rules that protect them from negligence?

Negligence is a separate question. Posters are saying that Baldwin should go to jail for murder. It is a defense to murder for him to think the gun is unloaded.

Ok, no-one thinks he'll be charged with murder though. People who think he'll be charged think it will be involuntary manslaughter or, more likely, negligent use of a deadly weapon


"Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection."

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter30/article2/section30-2-3/


"A. Negligent use of a deadly weapon consists of: ... (3) endangering the safety of another by handling or using a firearm or other deadly weapon in a negligent manner"

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter30/article7/section30-7-4/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film sets don’t make their own rules. If Alec Baldwin would’ve checked the gun seeing as he’s the guy that actually shot the woman none of this would’ve happened. Again this other guy told me it wasn’t loaded is not a defense. Why do you think film sets get to make up some magic rules that protect them from negligence?

You’re a moron. A complete and total moron.

DP - actually in all honesty I don’t understand how the laws against shooting and killing someone might apply or not apply here. I can’t imagine that an actor shooting someone to death on a set is somehow not criminal? I also realize it is done within a context of a movie shoot, but the gun, the shot, the shooter, and the death are all real. How are the rules of killing by gun relevant or not relevant in a circumstance like this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Horrific. I hope he pays dearly for this and faces jailtime. Cant stand how he's tried to make himself into a victim in all of this as well, taking attention away from the woman he killed.

Ooh, careful! You'll get reported for wrongthink. https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1010902.page

Wow, that is crazy. People arent allowed to talk bad about Alec Baldwin now, lol? This place just gets stranger all the time.

I’m the person that reported that other poster. To be clear, I can’t stand Alec Baldwin (as a person—some of his acting jobs were quite good). But there was one poster that just get repeating that the person who pulls the trigger bears the responsibility, which was very simplistic and very repetitive.
Personally I don’t think there’s any grounds to criminal charge him. My guess is that there will be no criminal charges for anyone, unless they have some witness showing who brought the live rounds on set and put them in the gun or box. Personally I think the armorers story that she couldn’t tell the difference between a live round and a blank when she loaded the guns sounds like she didn’t know what she was doing and wasn’t competent for the job.

It is not just one person posting that, it's anyone that understands gun safety. Any person holding a gun, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger is the person responsible. "Someone else told me it was not loaded" is not a defense.

DP and not the one to whom you're responding. What that PP who reported posts doesn't say is that the many posts repeatedly saying "any person holding a gun...etc." are not at all correct in terms of how firearms and firearms handling and responsibility works on a film or television set.

I posted much earlier about this but some posters here just do not care about the actual and factual context of THIS specific incident.

You and other posters keep saying "the one with the gun is the one responsible, criminal charges, etc." are acting as if this were a shooting at a range, or on the street, or anywhere but where it actually was: On a film set, following protocols used on films and television sets forever. The AD even said aloud that the gun was cold --which is the correct procedure when handing off a firearm to an actor. Were there massive, horrible, unforgiveable errors made? Absolutely. Should someone be charged with something? Very probably and quite likely. It should be the assistant director, who had no business touching the gun, and the armorer.

If you can bother yourself to learn how firearms work in productions, read this excellent article:
https://variety.com/2021/film/news/rust-halyna-hutchins-alec-baldwin-propmasters-armorers-1235096221/

The article explains why actors are not supposed to be responsible for the firearms they are handed. This quote by a film industry armorer about how actors and arms work sums it up:

“The reason that Alec Baldwin did not check the firearm is because… he’s not given time to do so. It is an understood that when the firearm is handed to him it is in proper working order. And that is the responsibility of the armorer prop master, whoever is in control of the firearms on set. So all the armchair quarterbacks that are sitting back and saying well, Alec Baldwin is responsible because he didn’t check the gun, that’s not the procedure that’s used on set — so stop with that. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the armorer or prop master or whomever is on set in control and responsible for those firearms being available and made ready for each scene.”

Ok, so if an actor has sex with a minor, on a film set, it’s ok? If the casting director told the actor she was 18, he gets a pass? How is it different?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Ok, so if an actor has sex with a minor, on a film set, it’s ok? If the casting director told the actor she was 18, he gets a pass? How is it different?

In your example the actor would not be prosecuted for having sex with an underage actress who at least appeared to be of age (e.g., Traci Lords)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Ok, so if an actor has sex with a minor, on a film set, it’s ok? If the casting director told the actor she was 18, he gets a pass? How is it different?

In your example the actor would not be prosecuted for having sex with an underage actress who at least appeared to be of age (e.g., Traci Lords)

I had no idea being an actor came with such advantages. There are lots of non actors in prison because "she told me she was 18" didn’t work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film sets don’t make their own rules. If Alec Baldwin would’ve checked the gun seeing as he’s the guy that actually shot the woman none of this would’ve happened. Again this other guy told me it wasn’t loaded is not a defense. Why do you think film sets get to make up some magic rules that protect them from negligence?

You’re a moron. A complete and total moron.

DP - actually in all honesty I don’t understand how the laws against shooting and killing someone might apply or not apply here. I can’t imagine that an actor shooting someone to death on a set is somehow not criminal? I also realize it is done within a context of a movie shoot, but the gun, the shot, the shooter, and the death are all real. How are the rules of killing by gun relevant or not relevant in a circumstance like this?

That’s what I’m wondering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film sets don’t make their own rules. If Alec Baldwin would’ve checked the gun seeing as he’s the guy that actually shot the woman none of this would’ve happened. Again this other guy told me it wasn’t loaded is not a defense. Why do you think film sets get to make up some magic rules that protect them from negligence?

You’re a moron. A complete and total moron.

DP - actually in all honesty I don’t understand how the laws against shooting and killing someone might apply or not apply here. I can’t imagine that an actor shooting someone to death on a set is somehow not criminal? I also realize it is done within a context of a movie shoot, but the gun, the shot, the shooter, and the death are all real. How are the rules of killing by gun relevant or not relevant in a circumstance like this?

That’s what I’m wondering.

If you followed established protocols in your industry, that would absolutely be a defense against negligence; on the other hand, not following protocols in your industry, even if not required for normal people, would be evidence of negligence. If the armorer weren’t an armorer but just a random colleague of the players involved, her responsibilities would be different. Her possible responsibility here js evidence in and of itself that the industry standard practice matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Film sets don’t make their own rules. If Alec Baldwin would’ve checked the gun seeing as he’s the guy that actually shot the woman none of this would’ve happened. Again this other guy told me it wasn’t loaded is not a defense. Why do you think film sets get to make up some magic rules that protect them from negligence?

You’re a moron. A complete and total moron.

DP - actually in all honesty I don’t understand how the laws against shooting and killing someone might apply or not apply here. I can’t imagine that an actor shooting someone to death on a set is somehow not criminal? I also realize it is done within a context of a movie shoot, but the gun, the shot, the shooter, and the death are all real. How are the rules of killing by gun relevant or not relevant in a circumstance like this?

That’s what I’m wondering.

If you followed established protocols in your industry, that would absolutely be a defense against negligence; on the other hand, not following protocols in your industry, even if not required for normal people, would be evidence of negligence. If the armorer weren’t an armorer but just a random colleague of the players involved, her responsibilities would be different. Her possible responsibility here js evidence in and of itself that the industry standard practice matters.

It really comes down to whether a jury believes that being on a film set and following their unsafe protocols is a reasonable excuse. I think the disagreement on this thread shows that some people would excuse someone if they followed protocols at their workplace, even if those protocols are unsafe. Other people would not excuse it.

[Anonymous]

okay, here is another angle. If you were with a friend who was going to point a gun at you, wouldn't you first check to see that the gun was not loaded?

So, my point being, yes, AB didn't check, but neither did the two people behind the camera, who, unlike AB, could be in danger and therefore had the most to lose. I think that goes to show their mentality of trusting the industry procedure (meaning, trusting the AD and the armorer.) I suspect that almost all the people on the set would share that mentality and no one who was handed the gun, or on the receiving end of the gun, would demand to check the gun. In that way, AB might be seen as not being negligent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:okay, here is another angle. If you were with a friend who was going to point a gun at you, wouldn't you first check to see that the gun was not loaded?

So, my point being, yes, AB didn't check, but neither did the two people behind the camera, who, unlike AB, could be in danger and therefore had the most to lose. I think that goes to show their mentality of trusting the industry procedure (meaning, trusting the AD and the armorer.) I suspect that almost all the people on the set would share that mentality and no one who was handed the gun, or on the receiving end of the gun, would demand to check the gun. In that way, AB might be seen as not being negligent.

I think the place where "he was following procedure" falls short is the aim of his weapon. I can get past that he didn't check the chamber. But the people from this industry are pretty consistent in saying actors aren't allowed to aim at other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:okay, here is another angle. If you were with a friend who was going to point a gun at you, wouldn't you first check to see that the gun was not loaded?

So, my point being, yes, AB didn't check, but neither did the two people behind the camera, who, unlike AB, could be in danger and therefore had the most to lose. I think that goes to show their mentality of trusting the industry procedure (meaning, trusting the AD and the armorer.) I suspect that almost all the people on the set would share that mentality and no one who was handed the gun, or on the receiving end of the gun, would demand to check the gun. In that way, AB might be seen as not being negligent.

I think the place where "he was following procedure" falls short is the aim of his weapon. I can get past that he didn't check the chamber. But the people from this industry are pretty consistent in saying actors aren't allowed to aim at other people.

What if he didn't aim at them but, he was taking it out and it went off? I haven't heard anywhere where he pointed the gun at them.