Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not much into Hollywood or guns. I still don't understand why you folks keeping thinking some procedure takes legal responsibility away from the shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I can only guess that they wanted authentic recoil and/or muzzle flash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not much into Hollywood or guns. I still don't understand why you folks keeping thinking some procedure takes legal responsibility away from the shooter.

He was blocking the scene. If the scene had called for a game of Russian roulette pointed at himself, he would have done that too. Because he was told the gun was safe by the experts.

[Anonymous]

George Clooney said that he always checks the gun himself, he doesn’t take the word of another person.

He has been an upper echelon Hollywood star for decades.

So there doesn't appear to be a universally agreed upon standard of where the buck stops with gun safety, the actor or armorer. That in it self is an issue legally. It shouldn’t be so subjective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not much into Hollywood or guns. I still don't understand why you folks keeping thinking some procedure takes legal responsibility away from the shooter.

He was blocking the scene. If the scene had called for a game of Russian roulette pointed at himself, he would have done that too. Because he was told the gun was safe by the experts.

I think you are missing that the this procedure has no legal authority. This person you are calling an expert was clearly not an expert.

[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!

Trust me, not talking about Hillary would be THE WORST thing you could do to her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not much into Hollywood or guns. I still don't understand why you folks keeping thinking some procedure takes legal responsibility away from the shooter.

He was blocking the scene. If the scene had called for a game of Russian roulette pointed at himself, he would have done that too. Because he was told the gun was safe by the experts.

If someone handed you a gun and told you it was empty and to point it at your head, would you do that or would you check it first?

[Anonymous]

I predict a hung jury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: George Clooney said that he always checks the gun himself, he doesn’t take the word of another person.

He has been an upper echelon Hollywood star for decades.

So there doesn't appear to be a universally agreed upon standard of where the buck stops with gun safety, the actor or armorer. That in it self is an issue legally. It shouldn’t be so subjective.

The Screen Actors Guild says actors are nit responsible fir the guns/props.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

There is a mens rea requirement for even involuntary manslaughter. It’s different in that you don’t have to intend to kill someome but you do have to have intended the act that led to it. (Eg you had to have intended to drive 80 in a residential area. If someone rigged your car so that it drove 80 against your will, or if you had a stroke and slumped against the gas pedal, no mens rea). Clearly he intended to pull the gun. But he did not intend to pull a loaded gun. That’s essentially the issue for trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I predict a hung jury.

The trial will take forever, they will Always Be Closing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: George Clooney said that he always checks the gun himself, he doesn’t take the word of another person.

He has been an upper echelon Hollywood star for decades.

So there doesn't appear to be a universally agreed upon standard of where the buck stops with gun safety, the actor or armorer. That in it self is an issue legally. It shouldn’t be so subjective.

There's always someone to one-up you in Hollywood. His last movie Tomorrowland was a dog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not much into Hollywood or guns. I still don't understand why you folks keeping thinking some procedure takes legal responsibility away from the shooter.

He was blocking the scene. If the scene had called for a game of Russian roulette pointed at himself, he would have done that too. Because he was told the gun was safe by the experts.

If someone handed you a gun and told you it was empty and to point it at your head, would you do that or would you check it first?

Not any someone. Not anywhere. An armorer who was tasked with exactly that responsibility on a movie set who handed you the "cold" gun and the director told you to aim it in their direction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm not much into Hollywood or guns. I still don't understand why you folks keeping thinking some procedure takes legal responsibility away from the shooter.

He was blocking the scene. If the scene had called for a game of Russian roulette pointed at himself, he would have done that too. Because he was told the gun was safe by the experts.

If someone handed you a gun and told you it was empty and to point it at your head, would you do that or would you check it first?

Yes, if that someone is a trusted expert. If they're not, then wtf am I doing playing around with a gun? SMH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I'm a DP but you're not realizing something semantic-related. Any object touched or used by an actor in a scene is called a prop. When they drink their mug of coffee, the mug is a prop. When they brush their teeth, the toothbrush is a prop. Those things are real objects. "Prop" doesn't mean fake in movie or theater lingo, it just means the objects the actors handle. It's why the props and set decorating departments are entirely different departments. The pictures on a mantel in the background of a scene? Set dressing. The photo album the the actor sits down to rifle through, a prop.

So on a movie set, a gun, real or not, is a prop.