Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

Huge waste of money. The prosecutor is trying to make a name for herself. There needs to be accountability but wasting that kind of money on a trial is appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If the film industry insists on using real working guns then I say that the actor should officially be the final line of defence. That’s the safest protocol.

Why that’s even needed in 2023 is beyond me. We can CGI dinosaurs, aliens and erupting volcanoes, but crew are needlessly put in danger because real guns are needed?

The answer is not having any real guns on set, period.

Amen. They cant have deadly weapons on set while also insisting that it's their "protocol" to handle them in a manner that no other industry would get away with. If you cant be bothered to have everyone who is handed a weapon check the chamber, you are not responsible enough to handle a gun.

[Anonymous]

Sounds like a loser case against Baldwin. Almost sounds like a cry for attention from a prosecutor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:LATimes article today:

“We are very concerned about the precedent this might set,” said Duncan Crabtree-Ireland, national executive director of SAG-AFTRA. “Actors are not trained to be firearms experts.”

That sentiment is widely share among the members of Hollywood’s largest union.

Matthew Arkin, an actor who has been shot at with dummies or blanks for his part in an episode of the CBS show “Criminal Minds,” argued that actors are at the bottom of the chain of command when it comes to weapons.

“It’s abominable, I think it’s horrible,” Arkin said of the pending charges against Baldwin. “A film set is an environment of experts and I’m supposed to be expert at the acting part, not the props, not the weapons.””

Pretty clear that Baldwin will have the legal firepower of the union behind him.

[Anonymous]

The person who is responsible, should always be held responsible. It does not matter who it is, that it is Alex Baldwin. Too many people are invested in what they think of Baldwin himself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The person who is responsible, should always be held responsible. It does not matter who it is, that it is Alex Baldwin. Too many people are invested in what they think of Baldwin himself.

No sweetie. AB is a nobody. The film industry is happy to see him take the fall. Producers don’t want to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I spent that same summer on a huge movie set. We had a very preventable accident on set. It’s not just Rust. Things have been spiraling for a while now. I had hoped the break for Covid would help, but it made things so much worse.

On a real job site in the blue collar world, safety is everyone's responsibility. If you see something unsafe, you are responsible to report it. You don't have the excuse of "safety is not my job." There's no, "It was his job to make sure we are safe." At least some of the workers understood this and refused to continue working on a dangerous set.

https://www.safeopedia.com/health-and-safety-in-the-workplace-is-everyones-responsibility/2/6045

Yeah. Ummm…. Movies are “real job sites” we are paid real money to do a real job.
You don’t understand the culture of that particular job, and that’s ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person who is responsible, should always be held responsible. It does not matter who it is, that it is Alex Baldwin. Too many people are invested in what they think of Baldwin himself.

No sweetie. AB is a nobody. The film industry is happy to see him take the fall. Producers don’t want to change.

Insurance companies will require adherence to firearms safety, like all people handling weapons checking the chamber.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: If the film industry insists on using real working guns then I say that the actor should officially be the final line of defence. That’s the safest protocol.

Why that’s even needed in 2023 is beyond me. We can CGI dinosaurs, aliens and erupting volcanoes, but crew are needlessly put in danger because real guns are needed?

The answer is not having any real guns on set, period.

Amen. They cant have deadly weapons on set while also insisting that it's their "protocol" to handle them in a manner that no other industry would get away with. If you cant be bothered to have everyone who is handed a weapon check the chamber, you are not responsible enough to handle a gun.

+1 And the armorer needs to be appropriately experienced and involved in every aspect of gun use on the set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person who is responsible, should always be held responsible. It does not matter who it is, that it is Alex Baldwin. Too many people are invested in what they think of Baldwin himself.

No sweetie. AB is a nobody. The film industry is happy to see him take the fall. Producers don’t want to change.

Insurance companies will require adherence to firearms safety, like all people handling weapons checking the chamber.

If it’s criminal, they have an out. They’re probably rooting for the DA harder than anyone

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person who is responsible, should always be held responsible. It does not matter who it is, that it is Alex Baldwin. Too many people are invested in what they think of Baldwin himself.

No sweetie. AB is a nobody. The film industry is happy to see him take the fall. Producers don’t want to change.

Insurance companies will require adherence to firearms safety, like all people handling weapons checking the chamber.

If it’s criminal, they have an out. They’re probably rooting for the DA harder than anyone

That means nothing for civil liability. Don’t you remember OJ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other producers didn’t shoot the gun.

Ultimately many peoples mistakes ultimately added together to kill this poor person but I think they narrowed on the right people in order to achieve some justice through the law: the Armorer who was in charge of weapons, the 2nd AD who incorrectly declared “ cold gun” and the Lead Actor/producer who pulled the trigger.

It wasn't his decision to point the gun at the camera. The director told him to do that. Perhaps what is needed is for the director to have the actor check the gun before pointing it at anyone.

"He told me to do it" is not a valid defense

In this context, it is.

If it’s not a defense to war crime, it’s not a defense here.

If the order is legal at face value, then it is.

Regardless, this isn’t a war crime- it’s a question of negligence. Was he negligent under the circumstances? Given the large numbers of actors who will say they wouldn’t have checked the chamber, that’s going to be a very hard case to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The person who is responsible, should always be held responsible. It does not matter who it is, that it is Alex Baldwin. Too many people are invested in what they think of Baldwin himself.

No sweetie. AB is a nobody. The film industry is happy to see him take the fall. Producers don’t want to change.

Insurance companies will require adherence to firearms safety, like all people handling weapons checking the chamber.

If it’s criminal, they have an out. They’re probably rooting for the DA harder than anyone

That means nothing for civil liability. Don’t you remember OJ?

You can’t insure against a criminal act

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The other producers didn’t shoot the gun.

Ultimately many peoples mistakes ultimately added together to kill this poor person but I think they narrowed on the right people in order to achieve some justice through the law: the Armorer who was in charge of weapons, the 2nd AD who incorrectly declared “ cold gun” and the Lead Actor/producer who pulled the trigger.

It wasn't his decision to point the gun at the camera. The director told him to do that. Perhaps what is needed is for the director to have the actor check the gun before pointing it at anyone.

"He told me to do it" is not a valid defense

In this context, it is.

If it’s not a defense to war crime, it’s not a defense here.

If the order is legal at face value, then it is.

Regardless, this isn’t a war crime- it’s a question of negligence. Was he negligent under the circumstances? Given the large numbers of actors who will say they wouldn’t have checked the chamber, that’s going to be a very hard case to make.

I agree. All the actors will weigh heavily on the argument that no busy actor can act and check various other things at the same time, including a gun. It's not their responsibility - now are they all checking the guns handed to them right now? You bet they are, but they don't want to be legally responsible for that task. There is no way Baldwin ends up with anything except a slap on the wrist. The armorer, on the other hand... IT IS LITERALLY HER JOB DESCRIPTION! Jail for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
SNL should bring in Trump to play Baldwin in the “I never pulled the trigger” skit.

This would be hilarious if

a. it wasn't inappropriate for a former president.
b. Trump was smart enough to do it right.

Won't happen. A woman died.

True. Thanks for pointing this out.