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:

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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

Alec alleges that his behavior was typical. The armorer is rolling him under the bus and saying he didnt pay attention to her instructions. And, Alec violated not one but several of the film industry safety guidelines, which a pp helpfully posted here. So, if Alec is going by, "lots of actors do it that way," he will lose. Would you buy any of this?:

"I brought a concealed firearm into this school for safety reasons; lots of people do."

"Lots of people drive drunk, I was going slow for safety. In fact, Im safer when I am drunk!"

"Many, many rockstars have sex with underage girls. And teen groupies are mentally similar to rock musicians."


Because that is how Alec sounds when he explains to us that lots of actors dont follow the safety guidelines since experts are around, and he pointed a loaded gun (even blanks can be deadly) bc the director told him to. Alec is an educated man who is intellectually curious, and seems to have above average intelligence. His argument that he's too challenged to understand even the most basic aspects of gun safety and therefore isnt responsible wont fly.

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

Alec alleges that his behavior was typical. The armorer is rolling him under the bus and saying he didnt pay attention to her instructions. And, Alec violated not one but several of the film industry safety guidelines, which a pp helpfully posted here. So, if Alec is going by, "lots of actors do it that way," he will lose. Would you buy any of this?:

"I brought a concealed firearm into this school for safety reasons; lots of people do."

"Lots of people drive drunk, I was going slow for safety. In fact, Im safer when I am drunk!"

"Many, many rockstars have sex with underage girls. And teen groupies are mentally similar to rock musicians."


Because that is how Alec sounds when he explains to us that lots of actors dont follow the safety guidelines since experts are around, and he pointed a loaded gun (even blanks can be deadly) bc the director told him to. Alec is an educated man who is intellectually curious, and seems to have above average intelligence. His argument that he's too challenged to understand even the most basic aspects of gun safety and therefore isnt responsible wont fly.

Are actors going to be responsible for checking anything they are told to use by the director for safety even if they are explicitly told by the designated professional that it is safe? Your examples are extremely poor.

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

That is just not true.

Not only was he an actor on set - he was a producer on set.
He had an obligation to check the weapon to be sure it was "cold."
And, he had an obligation to ensure that he did not point a weapon at a person he was not going to kill.
Basic safety measures.

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

That is just not true.

Not only was he an actor on set - he was a producer on set.
He had an obligation to check the weapon to be sure it was "cold."
And, he had an obligation to ensure that he did not point a weapon at a person he was not going to kill.
Basic safety measures.

There is no way SAG-AFTRA is going to let that become precedent. No way.

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

Alec alleges that his behavior was typical. The armorer is rolling him under the bus and saying he didnt pay attention to her instructions. And, Alec violated not one but several of the film industry safety guidelines, which a pp helpfully posted here. So, if Alec is going by, "lots of actors do it that way," he will lose. Would you buy any of this?:

"I brought a concealed firearm into this school for safety reasons; lots of people do."

"Lots of people drive drunk, I was going slow for safety. In fact, Im safer when I am drunk!"

"Many, many rockstars have sex with underage girls. And teen groupies are mentally similar to rock musicians."


Because that is how Alec sounds when he explains to us that lots of actors dont follow the safety guidelines since experts are around, and he pointed a loaded gun (even blanks can be deadly) bc the director told him to. Alec is an educated man who is intellectually curious, and seems to have above average intelligence. His argument that he's too challenged to understand even the most basic aspects of gun safety and therefore isnt responsible wont fly.

Are actors going to be responsible for checking anything they are told to use by the director for safety even if they are explicitly told by the designated professional that it is safe? Your examples are extremely poor.

Yes. The final person in the chain will still bear responsibility

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

That is just not true.

Not only was he an actor on set - he was a producer on set.
He had an obligation to check the weapon to be sure it was "cold."
And, he had an obligation to ensure that he did not point a weapon at a person he was not going to kill.
Basic safety measures.

There is no way SAG-AFTRA is going to let that become precedent. No way.

It’s 2023, they can just CGI their way out this. This does not seem like a good case to take a stand.

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

Alec alleges that his behavior was typical. The armorer is rolling him under the bus and saying he didnt pay attention to her instructions. And, Alec violated not one but several of the film industry safety guidelines, which a pp helpfully posted here. So, if Alec is going by, "lots of actors do it that way," he will lose. Would you buy any of this?:

"I brought a concealed firearm into this school for safety reasons; lots of people do."

"Lots of people drive drunk, I was going slow for safety. In fact, Im safer when I am drunk!"

"Many, many rockstars have sex with underage girls. And teen groupies are mentally similar to rock musicians."


Because that is how Alec sounds when he explains to us that lots of actors dont follow the safety guidelines since experts are around, and he pointed a loaded gun (even blanks can be deadly) bc the director told him to. Alec is an educated man who is intellectually curious, and seems to have above average intelligence. His argument that he's too challenged to understand even the most basic aspects of gun safety and therefore isnt responsible wont fly.

Are actors going to be responsible for checking anything they are told to use by the director for safety even if they are explicitly told by the designated professional that it is safe? Your examples are extremely poor.

Any deadly weapon, yes. Guns kill people.

[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: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.

No, actors negligently armed with firearms that contain live ammunition kill people. Absent human intervention, guns are paperweights.
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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

Alec alleges that his behavior was typical. The armorer is rolling him under the bus and saying he didnt pay attention to her instructions. And, Alec violated not one but several of the film industry safety guidelines, which a pp helpfully posted here. So, if Alec is going by, "lots of actors do it that way," he will lose. Would you buy any of this?:

"I brought a concealed firearm into this school for safety reasons; lots of people do."

"Lots of people drive drunk, I was going slow for safety. In fact, Im safer when I am drunk!"

"Many, many rockstars have sex with underage girls. And teen groupies are mentally similar to rock musicians."


Because that is how Alec sounds when he explains to us that lots of actors dont follow the safety guidelines since experts are around, and he pointed a loaded gun (even blanks can be deadly) bc the director told him to. Alec is an educated man who is intellectually curious, and seems to have above average intelligence. His argument that he's too challenged to understand even the most basic aspects of gun safety and therefore isnt responsible wont fly.

Are actors going to be responsible for checking anything they are told to use by the director for safety even if they are explicitly told by the designated professional that it is safe? Your examples are extremely poor.

Any deadly weapon, yes. Guns kill people.

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

That is just not true.

Not only was he an actor on set - he was a producer on set.
He had an obligation to check the weapon to be sure it was "cold."
And, he had an obligation to ensure that he did not point a weapon at a person he was not going to kill.
Basic safety measures.

There is no way SAG-AFTRA is going to let that become precedent. No way.

It’s 2023, they can just CGI their way out this. This does not seem like a good case to take a stand.

I think you have no idea why the union even exists.

They won’t let Baldwin hang out in the wind. It would weak the raison d’être for the union

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

Alec alleges that his behavior was typical. The armorer is rolling him under the bus and saying he didnt pay attention to her instructions. And, Alec violated not one but several of the film industry safety guidelines, which a pp helpfully posted here. So, if Alec is going by, "lots of actors do it that way," he will lose. Would you buy any of this?:

"I brought a concealed firearm into this school for safety reasons; lots of people do."

"Lots of people drive drunk, I was going slow for safety. In fact, Im safer when I am drunk!"

"Many, many rockstars have sex with underage girls. And teen groupies are mentally similar to rock musicians."


Because that is how Alec sounds when he explains to us that lots of actors dont follow the safety guidelines since experts are around, and he pointed a loaded gun (even blanks can be deadly) bc the director told him to. Alec is an educated man who is intellectually curious, and seems to have above average intelligence. His argument that he's too challenged to understand even the most basic aspects of gun safety and therefore isnt responsible wont fly.

Are actors going to be responsible for checking anything they are told to use by the director for safety even if they are explicitly told by the designated professional that it is safe? Your examples are extremely poor.

Any deadly weapon, yes. Guns kill people.

So do cars, trains, explosives, etc.

Have you ever seen a movie?

[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:

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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

Alec alleges that his behavior was typical. The armorer is rolling him under the bus and saying he didnt pay attention to her instructions. And, Alec violated not one but several of the film industry safety guidelines, which a pp helpfully posted here. So, if Alec is going by, "lots of actors do it that way," he will lose. Would you buy any of this?:

"I brought a concealed firearm into this school for safety reasons; lots of people do."

"Lots of people drive drunk, I was going slow for safety. In fact, Im safer when I am drunk!"

"Many, many rockstars have sex with underage girls. And teen groupies are mentally similar to rock musicians."


Because that is how Alec sounds when he explains to us that lots of actors dont follow the safety guidelines since experts are around, and he pointed a loaded gun (even blanks can be deadly) bc the director told him to. Alec is an educated man who is intellectually curious, and seems to have above average intelligence. His argument that he's too challenged to understand even the most basic aspects of gun safety and therefore isnt responsible wont fly.

Are actors going to be responsible for checking anything they are told to use by the director for safety even if they are explicitly told by the designated professional that it is safe? Your examples are extremely poor.

Any deadly weapon, yes. Guns kill people.

So do cars, trains, explosives, etc.

Have you ever seen a movie?

DP. Cars are driven by stunt drivers. If an actor drives one, they still get training.

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

That is just not true.

Not only was he an actor on set - he was a producer on set.
He had an obligation to check the weapon to be sure it was "cold."
And, he had an obligation to ensure that he did not point a weapon at a person he was not going to kill.
Basic safety measures.

When do you think the other producers will be charged?

The actor does not have an obligation to personally check the weapon. Maybe that will change after this incident, but that doesn't change the expectations and obligations in place at the time of the accident.

And I really don't understand how you think action movies would be filmed without actors ever pointing guns at other people.

[Anonymous]

There are so many weapons in movies and tv nowadays that could potentially maim, blind or take a life. Actors will have to be able to inspect each one every time they are used? A judgement against Baldwin will open a Pandora's Box.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many weapons in movies and tv nowadays that could potentially maim, blind or take a life. Actors will have to be able to inspect each one every time they are used? A judgement against Baldwin will open a Pandora's Box.

Yes.

This is not a bad thing, PP.

[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: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.

Dp- someone hired her. Someone combined firearms with props.
Some knew that experienced armorers weren’t taking this job.
Who was that? Who was making those decisions?

Something odd about the hiring choice... they were trying to save $ so they gave Hannah, the armorer, two jobs. She has since said that she was so busy it was hard to focus on gun safety.

Yet, they hired ANOTHER person with the job title "armorer mentor," who supplied all the guns and ammo, and who also suggested Hannah for the armorer position. It's not clear he was ever on set.
https://nypost.com/2021/11/09/rust-armorers-mentor-supplied-alec-baldwins-colt-45-report/

And it seems that people were walking around with live ammo. According to Vanity Fair, there were several live rounds.

I have to wonder if some sicko knew that the cast and crew were engaged in unsafe weapons practices and decided to do something awful. The guy that plays the enemy of Alec's character also had a live round and a weapon.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2023/01/alec-baldwin-halyna-hutchins-rust-bullets

None of this lets Alec off the hook for firing a weapon at a person, but I do wonder if a much worse crime occurred but they cant prove it. That may explain the very lengthy investigation in spite of Alec's criminal culpability being pretty obvious from the start.

"Alec's criminal culpability" is not obvious at all. That's why the sheriff had already previously said that he wouldn't be charged. Your convoluted conspiracy theory doesn't provide the explanation for the "lengthy" investigation.

The DA is reaching with this one. Playing games when it's inappropriate to do so.

It's not a convoluted conspiracy theory to wonder if the live rounds were intentionally placed on set. Lots of people, including Alec, have wondered that. In fact, it would be really odd not to investigate how and why the live rounds were there.

It's not "playing games" to charge people for killing someone. And for lying-- Alec claimed he never even touched the trigger--- he is lucky they didnt charge him with obstruction.

You don't charge someone over a bad outcome. You charge them over a bad act. The prosecution is alleging negligence, but everything we've heard so far suggests Baldwin's actions were consistent with the typical behavior and expectations of actors on set.

That is just not true.

Not only was he an actor on set - he was a producer on set.
He had an obligation to check the weapon to be sure it was "cold."
And, he had an obligation to ensure that he did not point a weapon at a person he was not going to kill.
Basic safety measures.

When do you think the other producers will be charged?

The actor does not have an obligation to personally check the weapon. Maybe that will change after this incident, but that doesn't change the expectations and obligations in place at the time of the accident.

And I really don't understand how you think action movies would be filmed without actors ever pointing guns at other people.

The state of New Mexico disagrees.