Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[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?

The AD accepted a plea deal. Is it not possible that Baldwin was offered the same?

[Anonymous]

I saw a couple of the talking heads on news channels guess that as part of his plea agreement the AD agreed to testify again Baldwin and the Armorer. If they are correct then he would be the best witness to gauge what actually happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I saw a couple of the talking heads on news channels guess that as part of his plea agreement the AD agreed to testify again Baldwin and the Armorer. If they are correct then he would be the best witness to gauge what actually happened.

Yes, I'm sure he agreed to testify. But, that doesn't make his testimony credible. The defense attorneys can challenge his testimony by suggesting that he is actually at fault, and testifying against AB just to get a sweet deal from the prosecutors. If he's the one who said "cold gun" -- I can see why he'd be eager to take a plea deal and say whatever the prosecutor wants him to say.

Based on the facts we have now, there's no way a jury of 12 is going to convict AB of negligent homicide. Now, if there is proof that AB knew there were live rounds here and there on the set in the recent past, or if AB knew H Guitierez wasn't actually capable of doing the armorer's job, or wasn't actually doing it, well... that's a different story. But, based on what we currently know... there's no way 12 people are going to convict AB.

[Anonymous]

Meanwhile… Hilaria is still using the accent. This woman needs mental help.

https://twitter.com/wyntermitchell/status/1616589103893741569

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

There’s an argument to be made that he didn’t know it had real bullets. In an interview he also claimed the gun went off on its own.

The gun had already gone off spontaneously a couple days earlier. It's possible that it did go off on its own - even though that's supposed to be impossible.

Guns do not “go off spontaneously”. You can load a gun, chamber a round of ammunition, place it on the ground, and as long as nothing touches it, it will remain there, unfired, until the Sun consumes the Earth 5 billion years from now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile… Hilaria is still using the accent. This woman needs mental help.

https://twitter.com/wyntermitchell/status/1616589103893741569

She has explained that she uses the accent depending on how happy or sad she is. We all know it must be muy upsetting for papí Alejandro to face prison porque los federales are corrupto y Republíqan.

[Anonymous]

Sorry don’t have time to read thru all the pages. Has this been answered: why are there real bullets on a film set in the first place and who loaded the gun?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry don’t have time to read thru all the pages. Has this been answered: why are there real bullets on a film set in the first place and who loaded the gun?

1) unknown
2) believed to be the armorer, but she stopped loading and took a lunch break, so it is possible someone else loaded the last round (which she was struggling with. Also, she didnt hand Alec the gun, so there are chain of custody issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

There’s an argument to be made that he didn’t know it had real bullets. In an interview he also claimed the gun went off on its own.

The gun had already gone off spontaneously a couple days earlier. It's possible that it did go off on its own - even though that's supposed to be impossible.

Guns do not “go off spontaneously”. You can load a gun, chamber a round of ammunition, place it on the ground, and as long as nothing touches it, it will remain there, unfired, until the Sun consumes the Earth 5 billion years from now.

This one did earlier. Did Baldwin intentionally or unintentionally pull the trigger? That's the most likely explanation. Did the gun go off on its own? This gun, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

There’s an argument to be made that he didn’t know it had real bullets. In an interview he also claimed the gun went off on its own.

The FBI tested the gun and they do not agree with any element of your post.

The gun had already gone off spontaneously a couple days earlier. It's possible that it did go off on its own - even though that's supposed to be impossible.

Guns do not “go off spontaneously”. You can load a gun, chamber a round of ammunition, place it on the ground, and as long as nothing touches it, it will remain there, unfired, until the Sun consumes the Earth 5 billion years from now.

This one did earlier. Did Baldwin intentionally or unintentionally pull the trigger? That's the most likely explanation. Did the gun go off on its own? This gun, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This will probably go the same way the John Landis/Twilight Zone Movie trial went. They’ll be charged but found not guilty.

I wonder if he'll plead a lesser charge, say reckless endangerment, which is apt. Hard to see how the armorer isn't guilty af.

He pointed a loaded gun at a woman and pulled the trigger. If there are any responsible gun owners on the jury, he's screwed.

There’s an argument to be made that he didn’t know it had real bullets. In an interview he also claimed the gun went off on its own.

The gun had already gone off spontaneously a couple days earlier. It's possible that it did go off on its own - even though that's supposed to be impossible.

Guns do not “go off spontaneously”. You can load a gun, chamber a round of ammunition, place it on the ground, and as long as nothing touches it, it will remain there, unfired, until the Sun consumes the Earth 5 billion years from now.

This one did earlier. Did Baldwin intentionally or unintentionally pull the trigger? That's the most likely explanation. Did the gun go off on its own? This gun, maybe.

No it did not, no gun can, or bullets in the box would be a danger. On this type of gun the hammer must be pulled back and released to have the bullet fire. That can be done by pulling the trigger, or the hammer by hand. There is no other way to have it fire.

[Anonymous]

Whose fingerprints are on the bullets? If not Alec, he shouldn't have been charged.

Unless someone can pull up an email saying Alec, rogue people are playing with guns, no charges from being the producer either.

And analogy poster, your analogies are all wrong.

This would be more like: Owner of restaurant has poison food. Someone dies from eating it. The server is charged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whose fingerprints are on the bullets? If not Alec, he shouldn't have been charged.

Unless someone can pull up an email saying Alec, rogue people are playing with guns, no charges from being the producer either.

And analogy poster, your analogies are all wrong.

This would be more like: Owner of restaurant has poison food. Someone dies from eating it. The server is charged.

So the person who loads the gun is guilty if someone else uses that gun to kill someone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whose fingerprints are on the bullets? If not Alec, he shouldn't have been charged.

Unless someone can pull up an email saying Alec, rogue people are playing with guns, no charges from being the producer either.

And analogy poster, your analogies are all wrong.

This would be more like: Owner of restaurant has poison food. Someone dies from eating it. The server is charged.

Your legal analysis isnt compelling.

[Anonymous]

Interesting interview with an armorer on the Atlantic’s site today. I enjoyed the peek at what usually happens on sets and the discussion of real vs fake guns in movies/tv.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/01/alec-baldwin-rust-movie-shooting-halyna-hutchins-involuntary-manslaughter/672829/

On the bit about bigwigs not respecting the crew’s expertise about safety: I’ve only been in the room with an A-list actor once, for all of about two minutes, and in those two minutes he reacted badly to a crew member trying to warn him about taking care around electrical cables. Can anecdotally confirm!