Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[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.

So given everthing, you think every set should run like Rust?

[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.

So what? Movies are just for entertainment. No one should die or suffer life long injuries so we can watch the next Star Wars or whatever. They should take precautions whenever a weapon is used or stop using real weapons
.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So what? Movies are just for entertainment. No one should die or suffer life long injuries so we can watch the next Star Wars or whatever. They should take precautions whenever a weapon is used or stop using real weapons
.

You sound very naive.

[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.

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.

And when he’s acquitted? Or the charges dropped? What will you say then?

[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.

An actor's obligation seems to be what is under dispute. It isn't clear if there is a protocol that is used on film sets related to gun safety and how mandatory vs voluntary the adoption of that protocol is. I am sure that the unions and associations have at some point produced a guideline or protocol for the handling of a firearm on set.Film studieso also have safety standards they are required to meet. There may also be jurisdictional differences as well depending on where filming is taking place.

There are clearly already some standards and responsiblities in place given how rare it is to see a firemarm injury on a film set. Do any of those responsibilities typically fall on the actor? The investigation must have uncovered some form of reckless or negligent behaviour for these charges to be brought.

So why did the injury occur on this set. Just a freak accident completely compared to every other film set or was there negligent or reckless behaviour that contributed? The courts will decide.

[Anonymous]

Film set guidelines can’t be an insulation from the laws of the state. If in deep red New Mexico, the law is that a gun handler has the ultimate accountability for the safe use of that gun then that’s the standard.

[Anonymous]

Seems like the the New Mexico DA is trying to make a name for herself on the back of this family’s loss and Alec Baldwin’s name.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Film set guidelines can’t be an insulation from the laws of the state. If in deep red New Mexico, the law is that a gun handler has the ultimate accountability for the safe use of that gun then that’s the standard.

Lol at “Deep Red New Mexico”

Democrats swept the state. Santa Fe is the bluest part of a blue state. And this DA is a lesbian Democrat who is strongly anti-gun.

[Anonymous]

Really ? When did that happen?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Really ? When did that happen?

Joy Behar says the DA is a Republican. Liberals are always better informed than the conservative right.


https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-joy-behar-new-mexico-da-alec-baldwin-20230121-pnsjchp3ujew7nrolpptkkje4e-story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Film set guidelines can’t be an insulation from the laws of the state. If in deep red New Mexico, the law is that a gun handler has the ultimate accountability for the safe use of that gun then that’s the standard.

Lol at “Deep Red New Mexico”

Democrats swept the state. Santa Fe is the bluest part of a blue state. And this DA is a lesbian Democrat who is strongly anti-gun.

New Mexico is pretty blue. It's kind of a like a Vermont. WSJ says the prosecutor is a democrat. She was also a former public defender.

[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.

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.

And when he’s acquitted? Or the charges dropped? What will you say then?

In the original thread there are plenty of posts saying he won't be charged, but here we are. What will you sat when he pleads out? Let me guess "he had to".

[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:

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.

And when he’s acquitted? Or the charges dropped? What will you say then?

In the original thread there are plenty of posts saying he won't be charged, but here we are. What will you sat when he pleads out? Let me guess "he had to".

DP. I said he wouldn't be charged - I was wrong. As a lawyer, the charge seems dubious. As an ethical observer, while there may be some evidence that has not been publicized, it seems clear that the blame lies with the armorer.

If he pleads or is found guilty, then we will all learn something from this. We all have learned something from this already. And I'm very sorry for the widower, who seems to have initially accepted Baldwin's apology but then over time did not.

[Anonymous]

I don’t think people understand how incredibly rare it is to have criminal charges arise out of workplace mortality. I can think of one case over decades of legal practice in the employment realm. Negligence suits, workers comp, yeah. Criminal liability…super rare, and for good reason. And the case I’m thinking of, it was an owner/operator who knew of the dangers and ignored them—-not a worker using tools or the trade. It may be that the evidence will show Baldwin was well aware of the issues, and knew the armorer was not on set. But I haven’t seen that evidence yet and I think a conviction will be very hard without it. One factor that seems relevant to me — he was inside a very small building at the time, and may have thought the armorer was just outside with the equipment, having handed the gun to the AD and told him it was a cold gun (meaning no ammunition at all — even dummy). The AD plainly knew this was not the case so I was surprised the AD got off with probation and Baldwin got charged. To me, the AD seems to bear a lot of fault here. Who told him the gun was cold and why would he take their word for it if it wasn’t the armorer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think people understand how incredibly rare it is to have criminal charges arise out of workplace mortality. I can think of one case over decades of legal practice in the employment realm. Negligence suits, workers comp, yeah. Criminal liability…super rare, and for good reason. And the case I’m thinking of, it was an owner/operator who knew of the dangers and ignored them—-not a worker using tools or the trade. It may be that the evidence will show Baldwin was well aware of the issues, and knew the armorer was not on set. But I haven’t seen that evidence yet and I think a conviction will be very hard without it. One factor that seems relevant to me — he was inside a very small building at the time, and may have thought the armorer was just outside with the equipment, having handed the gun to the AD and told him it was a cold gun (meaning no ammunition at all — even dummy). The AD plainly knew this was not the case so I was surprised the AD got off with probation and Baldwin got charged. To me, the AD seems to bear a lot of fault here. Who told him the gun was cold and why would he take their word for it if it wasn’t the armorer?

AD and armorer were clearly at fault but Baldwin is the famous name that the DA wants to make an example out of to further her anti-gun agenda. Not that I have a problem with getting real guns off movie and tv sets but it strikes me as injust to hold Baldwin accountable for an accident that could have happened to any other actor, with the exception of Saint Clooney.