Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He has spoken against guns many times And it was hypocritical for him to use one on set

That's why so many want to give him a free ride despite killing someone. It's all performance BS.

He's clearly guilty

[Anonymous]

I have a vision of Alec’s defence team asking a potential jury member during voir dire “ Are you a licensed gun owner ?”

[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.

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.

No. She was not on the set, she claims.

David Hall claims he didnt hand the gun to Baldwin, and continues to maintain this after he entered his plea.

Alec claims he didnt pull the trigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I have a vision of Alec’s defence team asking a potential jury member during voir dire “ Are you a licensed gun owner ?”

Im a registered gun owner. I think he was wreckless. They shouldnt have guns on set. Especially when their stance is that actors are too irresponsible to handle them-- then the obvious course of action is to use fake guns-- not to release film industry for any liability bc they are too stupid to be held accountable, which seems to be the defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and this isnt even the first time Saint Alec Baldwin has been charged with a violent crime. https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/alec-baldwin-due-in-court-over-parking-spot-punch-assault-case

He's toast, he's done. He has a history of violence and was warned repeatedly about gun safety issues on set. This isnt some totally out of character, unforseeable event.

Who thinks he is a saint? No one! Doesn’t mean he should be criminally charged for someone handing him a gun and saying - according to multiple sources - cold gun.

But do please provide sourcing for your claim about the repeated warnings. Other than the usual procedures for gun safety on sets.

Citation. And I anticipate more will come out in court based on Alec's phone.https://www.huffpost.com/entry/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-working-conditions_n_61732443e4b06573573b5f72

Still looking for a source about repeated warnings about gun safety issues on set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have a vision of Alec’s defence team asking a potential jury member during voir dire “ Are you a licensed gun owner ?”

Im a registered gun owner. I think he was wreckless. They shouldnt have guns on set. Especially when their stance is that actors are too irresponsible to handle them-- then the obvious course of action is to use fake guns-- not to release film industry for any liability bc they are too stupid to be held accountable, which seems to be the defense.

Did he load the gun? No
Was he told the gun wasn’t loaded with live ammo? Yes
Did the director tell him to point the gun in that direction? Yes

I’m no fan of Baldwin or a gun owner—he hasn’t made a decent movie in decades and seems full of himself. However, this seems like a tragic accident and I would not find him guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a juror.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

When you are on a movie set, it is expected that any "gun" you are given is either a fake gun, or has fake bullets, or no bullets at all. It's different than just being handed a gun when you are out in the woods with your friends (or anywhere in the "real" world). In the "real" world, if someone hands you a gun, you have some obligation to know what you are doing and to control what you are doing. Any gun in the "real" world is presumed to be real and any bullet is presumed to be real. On a movie set, you are in fake land. You know that there is an expert in charge of the props/guns. You know that there are not supposed to be any real bullets anywhere near anyone on the set. And then if someone actually tells you the gun is safe/clear/not loaded... you (not a gun expert) would have ZERO reason to think that there could be a real bullet in the prop-weapon.

The expectation on the movie set would be completely different than a reasonable expectation out in the world. HGR is in BIG trouble here. There's no way she's going to trial. Her lawyers will try to get her the best deal they can. There will be jail for her. She will agree to testify against AB. But, I don't care how much anyone testifies against him. I don't care whether he pulled the trigger or not. It does not matter. Based on the facts that we've seen so far, he is not liable.

The only way that I could see him being found guilty for negligent homicide is IF he had knowledge ahead of time that HGR wasn't qualified to do the job of armorer, that she wasn't actually doing the job, and/or he knew that there were live rounds on the set very close to the time of this accident. Unless the prosecution can show that, I expect AB will be found not guilty... and that will look very bad for the prosecution.

If an actor is responsible for the safety of the props, then why are prop-specialists ever hired? The actor's job is to act however s/he is told and with whatever materials/equipment s/he is given. The actor has a right to rely on the production experts to maintain the safety of the set.

In the real world, a reasonable person has to assume that anything that looks like a real gun, is in fact, a REAL GUN. On a movie set -- a pretend world -- , a reasonable person would assume just the opposite -- that anything that looks like a real gun is actually fake or harmless. No way a jury will be convinced otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

When you are on a movie set, it is expected that any "gun" you are given is either a fake gun, or has fake bullets, or no bullets at all. It's different than just being handed a gun when you are out in the woods with your friends (or anywhere in the "real" world). In the "real" world, if someone hands you a gun, you have some obligation to know what you are doing and to control what you are doing. Any gun in the "real" world is presumed to be real and any bullet is presumed to be real. On a movie set, you are in fake land. You know that there is an expert in charge of the props/guns. You know that there are not supposed to be any real bullets anywhere near anyone on the set. And then if someone actually tells you the gun is safe/clear/not loaded... you (not a gun expert) would have ZERO reason to think that there could be a real bullet in the prop-weapon.

The expectation on the movie set would be completely different than a reasonable expectation out in the world. HGR is in BIG trouble here. There's no way she's going to trial. Her lawyers will try to get her the best deal they can. There will be jail for her. She will agree to testify against AB. But, I don't care how much anyone testifies against him. I don't care whether he pulled the trigger or not. It does not matter. Based on the facts that we've seen so far, he is not liable.

The only way that I could see him being found guilty for negligent homicide is IF he had knowledge ahead of time that HGR wasn't qualified to do the job of armorer, that she wasn't actually doing the job, and/or he knew that there were live rounds on the set very close to the time of this accident. Unless the prosecution can show that, I expect AB will be found not guilty... and that will look very bad for the prosecution.

If an actor is responsible for the safety of the props, then why are prop-specialists ever hired? The actor's job is to act however s/he is told and with whatever materials/equipment s/he is given. The actor has a right to rely on the production experts to maintain the safety of the set.

In the real world, a reasonable person has to assume that anything that looks like a real gun, is in fact, a REAL GUN. On a movie set -- a pretend world -- , a reasonable person would assume just the opposite -- that anything that looks like a real gun is actually fake or harmless. No way a jury will be convinced otherwise.

The issue is that these weren't prop guns, but unmodified "real" guns. Apparently, this was necessary for authenticity. At that point, everyone handling the guns should have some basic gun safety training. Yes, even actors. Can we treat horses or swords like props? Actors just get to flail away without training?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

When you are on a movie set, it is expected that any "gun" you are given is either a fake gun, or has fake bullets, or no bullets at all. It's different than just being handed a gun when you are out in the woods with your friends (or anywhere in the "real" world). In the "real" world, if someone hands you a gun, you have some obligation to know what you are doing and to control what you are doing. Any gun in the "real" world is presumed to be real and any bullet is presumed to be real. On a movie set, you are in fake land. You know that there is an expert in charge of the props/guns. You know that there are not supposed to be any real bullets anywhere near anyone on the set. And then if someone actually tells you the gun is safe/clear/not loaded... you (not a gun expert) would have ZERO reason to think that there could be a real bullet in the prop-weapon.

The expectation on the movie set would be completely different than a reasonable expectation out in the world. HGR is in BIG trouble here. There's no way she's going to trial. Her lawyers will try to get her the best deal they can. There will be jail for her. She will agree to testify against AB. But, I don't care how much anyone testifies against him. I don't care whether he pulled the trigger or not. It does not matter. Based on the facts that we've seen so far, he is not liable.

The only way that I could see him being found guilty for negligent homicide is IF he had knowledge ahead of time that HGR wasn't qualified to do the job of armorer, that she wasn't actually doing the job, and/or he knew that there were live rounds on the set very close to the time of this accident. Unless the prosecution can show that, I expect AB will be found not guilty... and that will look very bad for the prosecution.

If an actor is responsible for the safety of the props, then why are prop-specialists ever hired? The actor's job is to act however s/he is told and with whatever materials/equipment s/he is given. The actor has a right to rely on the production experts to maintain the safety of the set.

In the real world, a reasonable person has to assume that anything that looks like a real gun, is in fact, a REAL GUN. On a movie set -- a pretend world -- , a reasonable person would assume just the opposite -- that anything that looks like a real gun is actually fake or harmless. No way a jury will be convinced otherwise.

The issue is that these weren't prop guns, but unmodified "real" guns. Apparently, this was necessary for authenticity. At that point, everyone handling the guns should have some basic gun safety training. Yes, even actors. Can we treat horses or swords like props? Actors just get to flail away without training?

There were two other people who were responsible for inspecting the gun before Baldwin got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

When you are on a movie set, it is expected that any "gun" you are given is either a fake gun, or has fake bullets, or no bullets at all. It's different than just being handed a gun when you are out in the woods with your friends (or anywhere in the "real" world). In the "real" world, if someone hands you a gun, you have some obligation to know what you are doing and to control what you are doing. Any gun in the "real" world is presumed to be real and any bullet is presumed to be real. On a movie set, you are in fake land. You know that there is an expert in charge of the props/guns. You know that there are not supposed to be any real bullets anywhere near anyone on the set. And then if someone actually tells you the gun is safe/clear/not loaded... you (not a gun expert) would have ZERO reason to think that there could be a real bullet in the prop-weapon.

The expectation on the movie set would be completely different than a reasonable expectation out in the world. HGR is in BIG trouble here. There's no way she's going to trial. Her lawyers will try to get her the best deal they can. There will be jail for her. She will agree to testify against AB. But, I don't care how much anyone testifies against him. I don't care whether he pulled the trigger or not. It does not matter. Based on the facts that we've seen so far, he is not liable.

The only way that I could see him being found guilty for negligent homicide is IF he had knowledge ahead of time that HGR wasn't qualified to do the job of armorer, that she wasn't actually doing the job, and/or he knew that there were live rounds on the set very close to the time of this accident. Unless the prosecution can show that, I expect AB will be found not guilty... and that will look very bad for the prosecution.

If an actor is responsible for the safety of the props, then why are prop-specialists ever hired? The actor's job is to act however s/he is told and with whatever materials/equipment s/he is given. The actor has a right to rely on the production experts to maintain the safety of the set.

In the real world, a reasonable person has to assume that anything that looks like a real gun, is in fact, a REAL GUN. On a movie set -- a pretend world -- , a reasonable person would assume just the opposite -- that anything that looks like a real gun is actually fake or harmless. No way a jury will be convinced otherwise.

The issue is that these weren't prop guns, but unmodified "real" guns. Apparently, this was necessary for authenticity. At that point, everyone handling the guns should have some basic gun safety training. Yes, even actors. Can we treat horses or swords like props? Actors just get to flail away without training?

No audience will know that a gun lacking a firing pin lacks a firing pin

[Anonymous]

I bet the charges against Baldwin end up being dropped once Baldwin’s lawyers sit down with the prosecutor and walk through their line of defense. The DA will get eviscerated.

The DA wanted her headline and she got it. The DA sat down with CNN yesterday to give an on camera interview lol

It’s pretty clear she wants to run for higher office in NM.

[Anonymous]

Not a fan of AB but, it was an accident. Intent matters.

If anything there should be regulations about prop guns. They should have to be non lethal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have a vision of Alec’s defence team asking a potential jury member during voir dire “ Are you a licensed gun owner ?”

Im a registered gun owner. I think he was wreckless. They shouldnt have guns on set. Especially when their stance is that actors are too irresponsible to handle them-- then the obvious course of action is to use fake guns-- not to release film industry for any liability bc they are too stupid to be held accountable, which seems to be the defense.

Alec Baldwin isn’t the film industry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I have a vision of Alec’s defence team asking a potential jury member during voir dire “ Are you a licensed gun owner ?”

Im a registered gun owner. I think he was wreckless. They shouldnt have guns on set. Especially when their stance is that actors are too irresponsible to handle them-- then the obvious course of action is to use fake guns-- not to release film industry for any liability bc they are too stupid to be held accountable, which seems to be the defense.

Did he load the gun? No
Was he told the gun wasn’t loaded with live ammo? Yes
Did the director tell him to point the gun in that direction? Yes

I’m no fan of Baldwin or a gun owner—he hasn’t made a decent movie in decades and seems full of himself. However, this seems like a tragic accident and I would not find him guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a juror.

I also feel involuntary manslaughter is a high bar here. If you are starting from the premise that there shouldn't have been any live ammunition on set and that the guns should not have been taken off set then there's a problem right there. Unless you can prove Baldwin knew that the guns had been taken off set and loaded with live ammunition then I don't see how you get to "commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection." We'll see what comes out at trial (if there is one) but the other factor is that Baldwin wasn't aiming at the victim specifically. He was going through his actions for the scene and "aimed" in their direction. That's not a reckless act if you think there's no possibility the gun is loaded, which is certainly what his attorney is going to argue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of AB but, it was an accident. Intent matters.

If anything there should be regulations about prop guns. They should have to be non lethal.

Not for "involuntary manslaughter"