Alec Baldwin fatally shot someone on movie set with gun mishap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ

How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?

Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.

I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.

That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.

[Anonymous]

Is his case similar to if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car? Is that involuntary manslaughter and if so what if anything is the punishment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ

How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?

Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.

I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.

That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.

My sympathy wanes when I remember his interview with George Stephanopoulos.

As for working again, he said several times in the past that he was ready to be done with it so he should probably retire. It's unlikely he will ever have the level of success he has had in the past. I'll never see him the same again after this and after learning that "my wife is from Spain" is a lie and he refuses to address it. And he had seven children with her and gave them "Spanish" names.

[Anonymous]

Well his wife is supposedly in talks to joining RHOH. Kyle said she'd love if Hillary joined.

I'd watch! Train wreck!

Guess this is the reality show the Baldwins have been seeking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the armorer should be punished. The actor expects to be given a clean weapon. It's why every set pays good money for the armorer, whose job it is to manage weapons on set and make sure they're safe.

I don't think a random actor who pulls a trigger should be held responsible, but Alec Baldwin could be, as producer of Rust and because he fostered an atmosphere of unprofessionalism on set. I'm not sure about that last part, though.

Is there someone else responsible for weapons and props who could also be responsible?

The Assistant Director long since pled out for a probation deal. He’s the one that handed the gun to Baldwin and violated procedure in that he did not receive the gun directly from the armorer. I think she also reported to him although I’m not sure about that part.

I agree with PP that the Baldwin case should hinge on whether he knew that the armorer was incompetent or unqualified. If not, in this particular acting context, it’s reasonable to rely on the safety checks done by the professionals. A plane is also a deadly weapon and we wouldn’t hold a pilot criminally liable if the mechanics failed to properly repair a part and the pilot crash landed on a house. Same with cars, cranes, mining equipment (eg explosives)—lots of workers use deadly tools in their jobs and we don’t expect every single user to be criminally responsible if the safety provessjobal fails to do their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is his case similar to if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car? Is that involuntary manslaughter and if so what if anything is the punishment?

I think it's either similar to

Your car's brake light comes on, and you take it to a reputable licensed mechanic, and they assure you it's fixed, but in reality they just turned off the light, so your brakes fail and you kill someone -- you're not guilty.

OR

Your car's brake light comes on, so you let your neighbor's 4 year old fix it with his plastic Little Tykes tools. Your brakes fail and you kill someone. -- You're guilty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ

How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?

Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.

I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.

That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.

I have a lot of sympathy for him. Yes, he seems to be wrecked by what happened.

My best friend killed someone who walked in front of her car on the highway and she had a hard time driving again after that. Train conductors often have to deal with suicides. For Baldwin, it wasn't a suicide so it's even harder for him to handle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.

Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.

They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people.

I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds.

+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks.

Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules

Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs.

I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense.

Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop.


You mean the "prop" that Alec was holding? The one that he shot two people with, that prop? What's the difference between the weapons cops and soldiers handle and what Alec was holding?

There is no difference. Alec demanded "authentic" period weapons rather than the fake guns most sets use. You don't get to say something isn't a weapon after you shoot two people and kill one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ

How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?

Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.

I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.

That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.

He got on TV and literally blamed the victim. He said he only aimed at Hutchins because she told him to. Watch his interview with George Stephanopoulos. He said he has no regrets about it. He sounds callous and incapable of introspection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is his case similar to if you accidentally hit and kill someone with your car? Is that involuntary manslaughter and if so what if anything is the punishment?

I think it's either similar to

Your car's brake light comes on, and you take it to a reputable licensed mechanic, and they assure you it's fixed, but in reality they just turned off the light, so your brakes fail and you kill someone -- you're not guilty.

OR

Your car's brake light comes on, so you let your neighbor's 4 year old fix it with his plastic Little Tykes tools. Your brakes fail and you kill someone. -- You're guilty.

I agree, and to me it's the first scenario. There was an armorer on set, she was 100% responsible. I understand that people hate him because he seems arrogant, but sometimes arrogant, unlikeable people are innocent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.

Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.

They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people.

I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds.

+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks.

Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules

Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs.

I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense.

Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop.

You mean the "prop" that Alec was holding? The one that he shot two people with, that prop? What's the difference between the weapons cops and soldiers handle and what Alec was holding?

There is no difference. Alec demanded "authentic" period weapons rather than the fake guns most sets use. You don't get to say something isn't a weapon after you shoot two people and kill one.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know this is the prosecutors take, but Baldwin sounds like a total rage monster.
Gift link:
https://wapo.st/4aM7QVJ

How many little kids does 66 year old Alec Baldwin have now - is it 6, 7 or 8?

Even with a bunch of nannies, I’m sure he isn’t getting the restful sleep he needs and his life at home is chaos. On some level he probably loves it, but he was probably exhausted and badly frayed by being on location at his age and in the circumstances.

I honestly think Baldwin is wrecked by the role he played in Hutchins’s death and it’s looking like he’ll never work again, so I have a little sympathy for the guy.

That sympathy wanes when I remember how he treated Ireland when she was just a kid, but he’s paying dearly for his prick behavior of the past.

He got on TV and literally blamed the victim. He said he only aimed at Hutchins because she told him to. Watch his interview with George Stephanopoulos. He said he has no regrets about it. He sounds callous and incapable of introspection.

He didn't blame the victim. He said what happened. Yes, he was trying to make sense of what happened and his part in it. Yes, hr was absolving himself, or trying to. No, he was not blaming Hutchins.

Do you remember that her husband initially absolved Baldwin and then later decided to blame him? Feelings aren't rational. Or accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.

Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.

They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people.

I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds.

+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks.

Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules

Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs.

I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense.

Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop.

You mean the "prop" that Alec was holding? The one that he shot two people with, that prop? What's the difference between the weapons cops and soldiers handle and what Alec was holding?

There is no difference. Alec demanded "authentic" period weapons rather than the fake guns most sets use. You don't get to say something isn't a weapon after you shoot two people and kill one.

Look, if you can't differentiate between a gun provided to a soldier for the literal purpose of killing an enemy and a period piece gun that a production company paid someone to maintain for the express purpose of it not killing people then get off the internet and go out of your home and touch grass. Some of you people have very seriously lost the plot.

[Anonymous]

https://packaged-media.redd.it/iseiz0ajuotc1/pb/m2-res_480p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1712966400&s=f820f01ae2394e2f85d3acfb8875509b9ff850ae#t=0

Alec playing with guns, to make a video for his kids. playing with guns and shooting towards ppl

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Alec should have checked the gun. Period.

You are clearly uneducated regarding who is responsible for what on a film set.

the law is due care, not who is responsible for what on a film set. Anyone who has ever owned a gun can tell you that every gun is loaded until you personally verify that it isn't.

If you are one of the people who insists that you are knowledgeable about guns, then you can see that guns with live bullets are not used on movie sets. If a movie set calls for an explosion or a live bullet, then that shoot would require very different safety precautions than a regular scene. Right? It is clear that the due care required for a prop gun with blanks is different than the due care required for a gun with a live bullet.

Any gun is a loaded gun until you know otherwise. If there are any gun owners on the jury, Baldwin is screwed.

They don’t have to be gun owners just people with common sense. I’ve never touched a gun in my life and have no plans to, and I know that you always treat guns as if they’re loaded and don’t point them at other people.

I disagree. A movie set isn't just regular every day life with gun owners in charge of their guns. There was someone there literally in charge of gun safety whose entire job was to make sure guns were safe to handle. There was also absolutely NO reason for live ammunition to be on the set, unlike life outside of a set where guns would have live rounds.

+1 there are rules for safety in handling weapons on a set and that is ultimately the responsibility of the armorer. She was just found guilty, as she should have been. It was her responsibility that a gun was loaded with live ammo instead of blanks.

Those are industry rules. Whether or not they absolve him is up to the jury. If the jury has gun owners, I doubt they care much about industry rules

Gun owner for over twenty years. I would care. Do you really think that the actors in saving private Ryan checked their weapons for live rounds every time Spielberg called action, you’re nuts. It’s not possible, imaginable or feasible. The movie would never get made. That’s why you hire experts to do their jobs, so the actors can do theirs.

I was held accountable to this standard as a literal teenager in the US Army. We would prosecute a soldier or a cop for what Alec did. And they wouldn't be able to afford competent defense.

Yes dummy. Because you were handling a weapon not a prop.

You mean the "prop" that Alec was holding? The one that he shot two people with, that prop? What's the difference between the weapons cops and soldiers handle and what Alec was holding?

There is no difference. Alec demanded "authentic" period weapons rather than the fake guns most sets use. You don't get to say something isn't a weapon after you shoot two people and kill one.

Look, if you can't differentiate between a gun provided to a soldier for the literal purpose of killing an enemy and a period piece gun that a production company paid someone to maintain for the express purpose of it not killing people then get off the internet and go out of your home and touch grass. Some of you people have very seriously lost the plot.


Oh. I see. Alec's gun was a not-deadly gun. Hmm, I think you need to touch grass. A gun doesn't care who maintains it. It's a weapon. That's why Alec shot two people and killed one.