Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well, if he was found negligent/guilty, it is a minimum five year term of imprisonment.

Looks like it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

It's almost like it was irresponsible to fire a gun, given all that, right?

So...you are advocating for no more guns in movies then? Interesting. I guess *I* am fine with that but I'm sure there are plenty of bloodthirsty gun weirdos who wouldn't be able to get their jollies at the movies anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

It's almost like it was irresponsible to fire a gun, given all that, right?

So...you are advocating for no more guns in movies then? Interesting. I guess *I* am fine with that but I'm sure there are plenty of bloodthirsty gun weirdos who wouldn't be able to get their jollies at the movies anymore.

Yes, that is what I am advocating for. Its an unreasonable risk.

And gun nuts dont get off watching Alec Baldwin fire guns at the movies. That isnt how any of this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

It's almost like it was irresponsible to fire a gun, given all that, right?

So...you are advocating for no more guns in movies then? Interesting. I guess *I* am fine with that but I'm sure there are plenty of bloodthirsty gun weirdos who wouldn't be able to get their jollies at the movies anymore.

Yes, that is what I am advocating for. Its an unreasonable risk.

And gun nuts dont get off watching Alec Baldwin fire guns at the movies. That isnt how any of this works.

Are you a real live human? You are writing a series of sentences in English I see, but none of it makes sense. Oh well! In any case, I think it’s possible you are saying that, going forward, we should have no more guns in movies/tv. Like I said, I think I can get on board with that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

It's almost like it was irresponsible to fire a gun, given all that, right?

So...you are advocating for no more guns in movies then? Interesting. I guess *I* am fine with that but I'm sure there are plenty of bloodthirsty gun weirdos who wouldn't be able to get their jollies at the movies anymore.

Yes, that is what I am advocating for. Its an unreasonable risk.

And gun nuts dont get off watching Alec Baldwin fire guns at the movies. That isnt how any of this works.

Are you a real live human? You are writing a series of sentences in English I see, but none of it makes sense. Oh well! In any case, I think it’s possible you are saying that, going forward, we should have no more guns in movies/tv. Like I said, I think I can get on board with that!

FYP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If I was on that jury, I would not find him guilty.

You haven’t heard all the evidence. You should think - if I were in that jury I will have an open mind and decide after hearing all the facts. It doesn’t matter that he is famous. He shot and killed someone. Whether he should be held accountable remains to be seen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump must be laughing his ass off!!

He wishes all he had to do was laugh to lose that dumptruck.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was on that jury, I would not find him guilty.

You haven’t heard all the evidence. You should think - if I were in that jury I will have an open mind and decide after hearing all the facts. It doesn’t matter that he is famous. He shot and killed someone. Whether he should be held accountable remains to be seen.

He was handed a gun by the weapons handler that was not supposed to have live ammunition. By what logic is he responsible for killing Hutchins, regardless of whether he pulled the trigger? DA is trying to make a name for herself.

[Anonymous]

There is so much information we don’t know about the general safety negligence on set and how much Alec (as a producer) knew or didn’t know. Alec was charged and the armorer was charged but David Halls wasn’t, despite clearly also not doing his job. This tells me that maybe the investigation uncovered that Alex was aware of lax safety and that as a producer had a duty related to safety that he didn’t attend to and that negligence contributed to her death. Or maybe he refused to follow protocol for gun safety or some element that clearly makes him more culpable than Dave Halls who was also negligent.

[Anonymous]

Oh I just read that Dave Halls signe da plea deal otherwise he would have been charged as well. He took a suspended sentence and probation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is so much information we don’t know about the general safety negligence on set and how much Alec (as a producer) knew or didn’t know. Alec was charged and the armorer was charged but David Halls wasn’t, despite clearly also not doing his job. This tells me that maybe the investigation uncovered that Alex was aware of lax safety and that as a producer had a duty related to safety that he didn’t attend to and that negligence contributed to her death. Or maybe he refused to follow protocol for gun safety or some element that clearly makes him more culpable than Dave Halls who was also negligent.

Or maybe, just maybe, the DA has been affected by social media outrage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I used to really enjoy Alec as an actor. His personal life has caused my opinion of him to totally change over the last two years.

He is a great actor, and he has made a series of life-ruining decisions. The only thing that stands in the way of me having empathy for him is his narcissistic rage. He has zero self awareness.

That said, I felt a pang of pity when I saw the images of his wife, who apparently decided to use the media frenzy for a pap walk with his kids. Anyone deserves better than that.

Yes that was absurd. Of all days… it appears she went in and out multiple times for maximum exposure. She really can’t help herself and has some serious personality disorder. I also noticed she blinged herself out for the 7am walk about. Random detail but I noticed how she left her jacket unzipped for the walk to and from the car. Call it a petty detail but I don’t know any mom at early morning school run who runs around with their breasts peeking over their shirt like that and jacket unzipped. You keep some things a little more private. It just indicates some weird attention seeking behavior to me.

Right. Let's stop hating on this woman, shall we? Jeff recently commented that Hilaria Baldwin triggered the most comments of any DCUM threads, of all time. I don't know why she riles you up like that, but you need to step back and just let her be, warts and all. I can tell from here you're not perfect either, PP!

Well she couldn’t have one of her FIVE nannies walk them out to school. She’ll never turn down an opportunity to get in front of a camera. She LOVES this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was on that jury, I would not find him guilty.

You haven’t heard all the evidence. You should think - if I were in that jury I will have an open mind and decide after hearing all the facts. It doesn’t matter that he is famous. He shot and killed someone. Whether he should be held accountable remains to be seen.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was on that jury, I would not find him guilty.

You haven’t heard all the evidence. You should think - if I were in that jury I will have an open mind and decide after hearing all the facts. It doesn’t matter that he is famous. He shot and killed someone. Whether he should be held accountable remains to be seen.

He was handed a gun by the weapons handler that was not supposed to have live ammunition. By what logic is he responsible for killing Hutchins, regardless of whether he pulled the trigger? DA is trying to make a name for herself.

It's basic firearms safety. You check a gun as soon as it is handed to you. This is true in any industry or even the military. Why would the film industry get a pass on firearms safety? If they dont want to use guns safely, they shouldnt use guns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was on that jury, I would not find him guilty.

You haven’t heard all the evidence. You should think - if I were in that jury I will have an open mind and decide after hearing all the facts. It doesn’t matter that he is famous. He shot and killed someone. Whether he should be held accountable remains to be seen.

He was handed a gun by the weapons handler that was not supposed to have live ammunition. By what logic is he responsible for killing Hutchins, regardless of whether he pulled the trigger? DA is trying to make a name for herself.

It's basic firearms safety. You check a gun as soon as it is handed to you. This is true in any industry or even the military. Why would the film industry get a pass on firearms safety? If they dont want to use guns safely, they shouldnt use guns.

Wrong. On film sets, the only one allowed to handle the gun, i.e., checking ammunition etc., is the armorer. It is literally his/her job because of liability. It would be like blaming an actor for not doing a safety check on a car brakes failing while he was driving and killing his passenger. That is not the actor's job or responsibility.

Special effects, explosives, guns, fire suits, cars...all of this is supposed to be handled and checked by the experts on the set...not the actors.