Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, Alec was not just an actor here. He was the main producer.

[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.

False analogy--an actor is NOT a soldier, a gun owner, an expeditioner, a hunting guide, a firearms instructor etc. he is an actor and they pay people to check these guns before handing them to the actor.
They do not want unqualified people opening weapons, or worse, crazy actors opening them and replacing dummy ammo with live ammo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, Alec was not just an actor here. He was the main producer.

What do you think producers do? They secure funding. They do not oversee the set and most producers never set foot on a set. That film probably has like a dozen producers. Why is the the only one responsible>

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False analogy--an actor is NOT a soldier, a gun owner, an expeditioner, a hunting guide, a firearms instructor etc. he is an actor and they pay people to check these guns before handing them to the actor.
They do not want unqualified people opening weapons, or worse, crazy actors opening them and replacing dummy ammo with live ammo.

I think the trial, if there is one, will call your beliefs about firearms procedures on film sets into doubt. Here, let George Clooney tell you:

“Every single time I’m handed a gun on the set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I’m pointing it too, I show it to the crew,” Clooney said. “Every single take.” Then, “You hand it back to the armor when you’re done.” He said. Part of it is because of what happened to Brandon. Everyone does it. Everyone knows” that is the protocol to follow. “Maybe Alec did that — hopefully he did do that."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2021/11/george-clooney-on-rust-incident-thinks-gun-safety-1234874907/amp/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Not according to this....
https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, Alec was not just an actor here. He was the main producer.

What do you think producers do? They secure funding. They do not oversee the set and most producers never set foot on a set. That film probably has like a dozen producers. Why is the the only one responsible>

You are describing the role of an executive producer. The term "producer" is like "program manager" in that it can mean a lot of things. But the set IS overseen by one or several producers, who have final approval on every aspect of production, from script to casting to set choices.

[Anonymous]

I have a feeling that the person who wants to educate everyone on how film sets are safety-requirement exclusionary zones and how production isnt managed by producers has no actual knowledge of the film industry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, Alec was not just an actor here. He was the main producer.

What do you think producers do? They secure funding. They do not oversee the set and most producers never set foot on a set. That film probably has like a dozen producers. Why is the the only one responsible>

You are describing the role of an executive producer. The term "producer" is like "program manager" in that it can mean a lot of things. But the set IS overseen by one or several producers, who have final approval on every aspect of production, from script to casting to set choices.

But if they were charging him in his role as a producer, they would have charged the other producers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, Alec was not just an actor here. He was the main producer.

What do you think producers do? They secure funding. They do not oversee the set and most producers never set foot on a set. That film probably has like a dozen producers. Why is the the only one responsible>

You are describing the role of an executive producer. The term "producer" is like "program manager" in that it can mean a lot of things. But the set IS overseen by one or several producers, who have final approval on every aspect of production, from script to casting to set choices.

But if they were charging him in his role as a producer, they would have charged the other producers.

Unless he was the producer responsible for that aspect of the production.

This isnt that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

False analogy--an actor is NOT a soldier, a gun owner, an expeditioner, a hunting guide, a firearms instructor etc. he is an actor and they pay people to check these guns before handing them to the actor.
They do not want unqualified people opening weapons, or worse, crazy actors opening them and replacing dummy ammo with live ammo.

I think the trial, if there is one, will call your beliefs about firearms procedures on film sets into doubt. Here, let George Clooney tell you:

“Every single time I’m handed a gun on the set — every time — they hand me a gun, I look at it, I open it, I show it to the person I’m pointing it too, I show it to the crew,” Clooney said. “Every single take.” Then, “You hand it back to the armor when you’re done.” He said. Part of it is because of what happened to Brandon. Everyone does it. Everyone knows” that is the protocol to follow. “Maybe Alec did that — hopefully he did do that."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/deadline.com/2021/11/george-clooney-on-rust-incident-thinks-gun-safety-1234874907/amp/

I think this is the crux of the case. I’ve heard very different things about what is the standard in the industry. I’d assume both sides will have experts, if this ever goes to trial. I said up thread and I’ll say it again that it seems like the AD got a great deal — he’s the one that took the gun when the armorer was nowhere on sight and told everyone it was unloaded. He seems more responsible to me than Baldwin. And of course whatever idiot brought love rojnds onto set and whoever failed to secure the guns and dummy rounds (which sounds like the armorer).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Again, Alec was not just an actor here. He was the main producer.

What do you think producers do? They secure funding. They do not oversee the set and most producers never set foot on a set. That film probably has like a dozen producers. Why is the the only one responsible>

Because this movie was a one-man show -- Baldwin's

[Anonymous]

Baldwin was not the “Main Producer”.
Just stop with that. He brought in some money to back the film and that gave him a credit. That’s it.
He wasn’t responsible for hiring, or on set safety.
The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldwin was not the “Main Producer”.
Just stop with that. He brought in some money to back the film and that gave him a credit. That’s it.
He wasn’t responsible for hiring, or on set safety.
The end.

Save it for your testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldwin was not the “Main Producer”.
Just stop with that. He brought in some money to back the film and that gave him a credit. That’s it.
He wasn’t responsible for hiring, or on set safety.
The end.

Save it for your testimony.

Go back to your day job. Your ignorance re: film making is boring.

[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 not because he held and shot the gun. It's because it was HIS set, he was also responsible for overall safety, which was lacking in a larger sense on that set and obviously was lacking in gun safety. If he had ONLY been an actor and had no other role in the production, I doubt we'd see this charge. It's because of his responsibility as the main producer for the overall safety, which apparently was lacking in many respects.