Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Spanish accent going strong.

She left out the part where they have a private entrance in the back. So she's creating a spectacle on purpose to gain insta followers.

Her accent y'all. She's unbelievable. "Plis! We have kids!" Ummm, you are literally dressing up in a diamond necklace for a 7am pap walk. Ma'am, this is not how to gain privacy.

She wants peace for her kids, yet she brings a baby out there with her instead of leaving it with the army of Nannie’s inside. And that accent. She is so very crazy.

She is a very personality disordered human. Her kids are pawns that are always been used, her need for attention is pathological. It is very unfortunate and unhealthy and I truly feel for her kids. Hopefully Alec is a little more sane as a parent. I doubt nannies stay long term given how she is and that means revolving care givers for all these kids. And that accent...

Her accent?! Isn't that the usual accent you hear from a native New Yorker who went to school in Boston?🤣

I

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just wrong. Alec had no reason to believe that gun would hurt anyone than if it was a banana. If this had happened to George Clooney, he wouldn't have been charged. Alec has an attitude and it makes others want to take him down a notch or two. Rooting for an acquittal.

Right? Guns and bananas are so alike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What are New Mexico’s laws about what an an individuals responsibilities are around gun handling?

Could the DA argue to Baldwin “ screw the Armorer, YOU pointed a working gun at a human being and pulled the trigger, you and only you are responsible according to state law”.

In other words does the state laws allow the Armorer to fully take ownership of the legal responsibility for gun accidents? Like when I go skydiving for the first , I have to sign a waver to say that the company bears no responsibility for accidents. I can’t later blame the teacher for accidents.

The armorer wasnt even on the set. They did this all without her. So its hard to lay it all on her.

[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).

Here is the thing.... multiple "rules" were broken along the way. Baldwin was the producer who fired the fatal shot. It appears that protocols were very lax on set - so much so that several of the staff walked out prior to the incident.
I can't stand Maddow, but the expert she has on walks through all of the rules that were broken that resulted in the death of this cinematographer. He is on at the 4:45 point.

And, you do not need to be a gun expert to know basic gun safety.

So, just so I am clear: "basic gun safety" includes instruction on when you can safely point/fire a very realistic pretend weapon directly at another human without harming them?

The weapon Baldwin pointed was not a "realistic pretend weapon." It was a very real weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Okay well that’s their point with the charges, right? They’re saying that’s the deal. So either they use dummy guns and CGI the firing, or everyone who touches the gun bears a certain, defined level of responsibility (check it, don’t point it at people, whatever else). It seems clear that the point of the prosecution is to lay down the law and force subsequent film sets to comply, thus hopefully making them safer. If actors want to refuse to handle live guns because of potential criminal liability, that’s fine! That’s the system working. They’re protected by strong unions and agents and the industry will adjust and have much better safety protocols, at least for a while. That seems appropriate given that a woman lost her life.

The thing is you consider negligence and recklessness based on current standard practices. The prosecutor cannot just make up what they think industry standards are. You always have to look at industry safety practices and standards when assessing rhe culpability of individuals. You can't hold an individual to a standard beyond the norm and the assign criminal culpability based on that.

And the jury can decide that the standard or decide they were not actually sufficient or the normal in today's world.

He was rehearsing the shot as directed. He wasn’t playing around. This is a waste of tax dollars.

He shot a loaded gun and killed a woman. Whether or not it was criminal to not verify that the gun was unloaded will be up to a jury.

Why was he aiming a gun at her in the first place? Not in the script!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Okay well that’s their point with the charges, right? They’re saying that’s the deal. So either they use dummy guns and CGI the firing, or everyone who touches the gun bears a certain, defined level of responsibility (check it, don’t point it at people, whatever else). It seems clear that the point of the prosecution is to lay down the law and force subsequent film sets to comply, thus hopefully making them safer. If actors want to refuse to handle live guns because of potential criminal liability, that’s fine! That’s the system working. They’re protected by strong unions and agents and the industry will adjust and have much better safety protocols, at least for a while. That seems appropriate given that a woman lost her life.

The thing is you consider negligence and recklessness based on current standard practices. The prosecutor cannot just make up what they think industry standards are. You always have to look at industry safety practices and standards when assessing rhe culpability of individuals. You can't hold an individual to a standard beyond the norm and the assign criminal culpability based on that.

And the jury can decide that the standard or decide they were not actually sufficient or the normal in today's world.

He was rehearsing the shot as directed. He wasn’t playing around. This is a waste of tax dollars.

He shot a loaded gun and killed a woman. Whether or not it was criminal to not verify that the gun was unloaded will be up to a jury.

Why was he aiming a gun at her in the first place? Not in the script!

In fairness, we are talking about someone who cant tell a gun from a banana, so asking him to read a script is a stretch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Spanish accent going strong.

She left out the part where they have a private entrance in the back. So she's creating a spectacle on purpose to gain insta followers.

Her accent y'all. She's unbelievable. "Plis! We have kids!" Ummm, you are literally dressing up in a diamond necklace for a 7am pap walk. Ma'am, this is not how to gain privacy.

She wants peace for her kids, yet she brings a baby out there with her instead of leaving it with the army of Nannie’s inside. And that accent. She is so very crazy.

She is a very personality disordered human. Her kids are pawns that are always been used, her need for attention is pathological. It is very unfortunate and unhealthy and I truly feel for her kids. Hopefully Alec is a little more sane as a parent. I doubt nannies stay long term given how she is and that means revolving care givers for all these kids. And that accent...

Her accent?! Isn't that the usual accent you hear from a native New Yorker who went to school in Boston?🤣

I

Oops. Native of Boston.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Okay well that’s their point with the charges, right? They’re saying that’s the deal. So either they use dummy guns and CGI the firing, or everyone who touches the gun bears a certain, defined level of responsibility (check it, don’t point it at people, whatever else). It seems clear that the point of the prosecution is to lay down the law and force subsequent film sets to comply, thus hopefully making them safer. If actors want to refuse to handle live guns because of potential criminal liability, that’s fine! That’s the system working. They’re protected by strong unions and agents and the industry will adjust and have much better safety protocols, at least for a while. That seems appropriate given that a woman lost her life.

The thing is you consider negligence and recklessness based on current standard practices. The prosecutor cannot just make up what they think industry standards are. You always have to look at industry safety practices and standards when assessing rhe culpability of individuals. You can't hold an individual to a standard beyond the norm and the assign criminal culpability based on that.

And the jury can decide that the standard or decide they were not actually sufficient or the normal in today's world.

He was rehearsing the shot as directed. He wasn’t playing around. This is a waste of tax dollars.

He shot a loaded gun and killed a woman. Whether or not it was criminal to not verify that the gun was unloaded will be up to a jury.

Why was he aiming a gun at her in the first place? Not in the script!

The director - who was hit by the bullet after it passed through the chest of the cinematographer - had instructed Alec to point the firearm at the camera in order to frame the next shot. The director already provided that testimony to the police from his bed in the hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What are New Mexico’s laws about what an an individuals responsibilities are around gun handling?

Could the DA argue to Baldwin “ screw the Armorer, YOU pointed a working gun at a human being and pulled the trigger, you and only you are responsible according to state law”.

In other words does the state laws allow the Armorer to fully take ownership of the legal responsibility for gun accidents? Like when I go skydiving for the first , I have to sign a waver to say that the company bears no responsibility for accidents. I can’t later blame the teacher for accidents.

No waiver you sing can absolve a third party of liability for a criminal act

I phrased that poorly. Let me clarify. Alec Blaldwin wasn’t an experienced gun owner. An Armorer was hired in essence to replace his lack of experience, to be the expert, teacher and risk mitigater. My question is does that hold up in state law. So if I was learning to skydive and wasn’t “signed off” yet so was attached to the teacher in a tandem jump but I incorrectly fall and land and get injured. It’s my fault, not the teachers, I can’t blame them for my incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What are New Mexico’s laws about what an an individuals responsibilities are around gun handling?

Could the DA argue to Baldwin “ screw the Armorer, YOU pointed a working gun at a human being and pulled the trigger, you and only you are responsible according to state law”.

In other words does the state laws allow the Armorer to fully take ownership of the legal responsibility for gun accidents? Like when I go skydiving for the first , I have to sign a waver to say that the company bears no responsibility for accidents. I can’t later blame the teacher for accidents.

The armorer wasnt even on the set. They did this all without her. So its hard to lay it all on her.

This is sarcasm, right? Asking for a friend.

[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.

No knowledge of film industry or technology or guns so maybe this is a dumb question. But in this day and age do they even need prop guns? Can’t this stuff be CGI later?

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

[Anonymous]

Messed up the quote formatting above.

Re posting: No knowledge of film industry or technology or guns so maybe this is a dumb question. But in this day and age do they even need prop guns? Can’t this stuff be CGI later?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
What are New Mexico’s laws about what an an individuals responsibilities are around gun handling?

Could the DA argue to Baldwin “ screw the Armorer, YOU pointed a working gun at a human being and pulled the trigger, you and only you are responsible according to state law”.

In other words does the state laws allow the Armorer to fully take ownership of the legal responsibility for gun accidents? Like when I go skydiving for the first , I have to sign a waver to say that the company bears no responsibility for accidents. I can’t later blame the teacher for accidents.

No waiver you sing can absolve a third party of liability for a criminal act

I phrased that poorly. Let me clarify. Alec Blaldwin wasn’t an experienced gun owner. An Armorer was hired in essence to replace his lack of experience, to be the expert, teacher and risk mitigater. My question is does that hold up in state law. So if I was learning to skydive and wasn’t “signed off” yet so was attached to the teacher in a tandem jump but I incorrectly fall and land and get injured. It’s my fault, not the teachers, I can’t blame them for my incompetence.

It depends on what is reasonable. If it's reasonable for me to trust third party, then he isn't liable, if it is unreasonable to rely on them then he is. One side will argue it is, and the other will argue that it isn't and the jury will decide who is correct

[Anonymous]

This case and these charges are still a long way from going to trial. They could be downgraded or thrown out many times over before a trial happens

[Anonymous]

Why would they file charges here but not when Brandon Lee was shot by a live round and died? It smells like a publicity grab for the DA. Although movie sets should just stop using real guns since this has happened again. The DA should focus on that. Maybe actors will insist on that now. Also why aren’t they pursuing where the live ammunition came from?