Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

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

It also says “As an actor, you are ultimately responsible for your own safety and the safety of your fellow cast members.” And “Treat all firearms as though they are loaded.” Oh, and “No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures.” And “Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.”

[Anonymous]

Excellent article that delves into the nuances of industry practice and the uphill battle the prosecutor faces in the case:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/arts/alec-baldwin-gun-safety-film.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It also says “As an actor, you are ultimately responsible for your own safety and the safety of your fellow cast members.” And “Treat all firearms as though they are loaded.” Oh, and “No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures.” And “Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.”

remember brandon lee?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Excellent article that delves into the nuances of industry practice and the uphill battle the prosecutor faces in the case:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/arts/alec-baldwin-gun-safety-film.html

That’s their conclusion, but half the actors they talked said they personally check guns including an actor from this set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It also says “As an actor, you are ultimately responsible for your own safety and the safety of your fellow cast members.” And “Treat all firearms as though they are loaded.” Oh, and “No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures.” And “Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.”

remember brandon lee?

Everyone remembers Brandon Lee.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excellent article that delves into the nuances of industry practice and the uphill battle the prosecutor faces in the case:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/arts/alec-baldwin-gun-safety-film.html

That’s their conclusion, but half the actors they talked said they personally check guns including an actor from this set.

Only half? Shocking!

[Anonymous]

These charges were post an 18 month investigation. They must feel they have enough to give them a little weight.

Having all 3 people check the gun isn’t because an actor is expected to be a gun expert, it is just to try and avoid an incident like this and to increase safety on set. Having multiple people check the gun compensates for human error.

The Actors Equity union that covers stage actors and cast says the actors should always check the gun in their protocols. You would think film would have something similar.

[Anonymous]

Woman slaughter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that's crazy, and I have a lot of experience with guns. I would personally check. For all the reasons Alec is finding out about. It costs NOTHING to check. For the life of me, I cant understand why people would say that not personally inspecting a gun is okay, after this example of a woman dead, a man shot, and several lives ruined. And Alec is publicly saying he has no regrets. Thats nuts to me. He claims to be anti-gun, but he thinks everything he did was a-okay. I cant with him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I think that's crazy, and I have a lot of experience with guns. I would personally check. For all the reasons Alec is finding out about. It costs NOTHING to check. For the life of me, I cant understand why people would say that not personally inspecting a gun is okay, after this example of a woman dead, a man shot, and several lives ruined. And Alec is publicly saying he has no regrets. Thats nuts to me. He claims to be anti-gun, but he thinks everything he did was a-okay. I cant with him.

Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

I think that's crazy, and I have a lot of experience with guns. I would personally check. For all the reasons Alec is finding out about. It costs NOTHING to check. For the life of me, I cant understand why people would say that not personally inspecting a gun is okay, after this example of a woman dead, a man shot, and several lives ruined. And Alec is publicly saying he has no regrets. Thats nuts to me. He claims to be anti-gun, but he thinks everything he did was a-okay. I cant with him.

Sure.

? Do you understand how crazy you sound, saying that a procedure (in which everyone thought someone else was checking) that resulted in death and tragedy is superior to just like, sliding a weapon open and taking a peak? Youre taking an indefensible and implausible decision. Anyone who is like "let's do it like they did on Rust" is a moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that's crazy, and I have a lot of experience with guns. I would personally check. For all the reasons Alec is finding out about. It costs NOTHING to check. For the life of me, I cant understand why people would say that not personally inspecting a gun is okay, after this example of a woman dead, a man shot, and several lives ruined. And Alec is publicly saying he has no regrets. Thats nuts to me. He claims to be anti-gun, but he thinks everything he did was a-okay. I cant with him.

Sure.

? Do you understand how crazy you sound, saying that a procedure (in which everyone thought someone else was checking) that resulted in death and tragedy is superior to just like, sliding a weapon open and taking a peak? Youre taking an indefensible and implausible decision. Anyone who is like "let's do it like they did on Rust" is a moron.

Literally no one is saying to do it like they did it.
But some posters do not feel AB should be criminally charged.

[Anonymous]

The DA has been given Interviews in the last couple of days.

I think that her argument for Baldwin being negligent is that as a producer he should have know that gun safety protocols had been going wrong though the production so He should have assumed it would that time too and checked the gun himself.

She isn’t treating him as just an actor who could normally just rely on the Armorer and AD as protocol but as a producer with a birds eye view and responsibility of systemic safety issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

It also says “As an actor, you are ultimately responsible for your own safety and the safety of your fellow cast members.” And “Treat all firearms as though they are loaded.” Oh, and “No one shall be issued a firearm until he or she is trained in safe handling, safe use, the safety lock, and proper firing procedures.” And “Remember that any object at which you point a firearm could be destroyed.”

remember brandon lee?

There’s a huge difference. The Brandon Lee gun was loaded with blanks, and a part of the blank casing broke off when the gun fired. Not live bullets. That’s called an accident because something failed instead of working as designed. Not checking for live bullets is not an accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I think that's crazy, and I have a lot of experience with guns. I would personally check. For all the reasons Alec is finding out about. It costs NOTHING to check. For the life of me, I cant understand why people would say that not personally inspecting a gun is okay, after this example of a woman dead, a man shot, and several lives ruined. And Alec is publicly saying he has no regrets. Thats nuts to me. He claims to be anti-gun, but he thinks everything he did was a-okay. I cant with him.

Sure.

? Do you understand how crazy you sound, saying that a procedure (in which everyone thought someone else was checking) that resulted in death and tragedy is superior to just like, sliding a weapon open and taking a peak? Youre taking an indefensible and implausible decision. Anyone who is like "let's do it like they did on Rust" is a moron.

Literally no one is saying to do it like they did it.
But some posters do not feel AB should be criminally charged.

Thats not true. Read the thread. Many people are making the argument that Rust's procedures were affirmatively safer than one in which actors check the weapon. Some commenters suggested actors are far too stupid to be tasked with looking at the chamber and determing if it is loaded--- another commenter thought actors would be too stupid to understand a gun is capable of firing, and might mistake it for a banana.
The comment I was replying to actually stated that if an armorer gave the pp a gun, they'd feel confident pointing it to their heads and pulling the trigger. Those are crazy statements. In no scenario are you safer by deferring all judgment to someone else, as a general rule. And, if actors are indeed thought to be this dumb, there should never be a gun, or any sharp objects on set.