Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

[Anonymous]

I still cannot get over him making Halyna’s husband and son meet with him right after he shot her. Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

I think it will be difficult for a jury to get to a unanimous decision for Baldwin. Actors do not unload and check weapons for live rounds; that was never a process Baldwin had done in his career. Further, the mere act of hiring an armorer is an indication that you are not acting “recklessly” since you are spending money to ensure a professional handled the firearms at all times.

I think the armorer is screwed and will be found guilty. It’s their job to check the rounds and keep firearms locked up at all times when not in use.

In short:
Baldwin - hung jury, prosecution will give up after first trial
Armorer - guilty of involuntary manslaughter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know why it took this long, but it seems like it was the obvious course of action all along. I can only imagine the evidence must be damning, because otherwise they wouldn’t have brought charges.

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

This.

He should have been arrested from Day 1.

It was either manslaughter or murder, but it was clear that 1) there was a dead person and 2) Baldwin was the shooter

No it is more complicated. He is responsible but it is not like he was driving a car drunk and hit someone. He should have been more careful but a jury will take into consideration that he didn’t know the gun was armed. One thing that will not be helpful and I found out later is that you are never supposed to actually point at someone in a shot-editing makes it look real. Apparently he was asked to point for the shot but he should have declined. I do not think putting him in jail is helpful. I am sure he will live with this forever.

Is it SOP for an actor to check the gun? If not, I don’t think it’s his fault. If yes, then he was being negligent.

To me, it’s comparable to the difference between driving a car while being distracted by your phone and hitting someone vs. driving without any distractions and still hitting them. You most likely won’t be charged in the latter cases and that’s because they can’t prove negligence. Accidents do happen and people aren’t punished for true accidents where they did nothing wrong (meaning, no drinking, no drugs, no phone, no speeding, etc.).

So if it is not SOP for actors to check the gun, I don’t see how he is at fault for negligence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

+1. I don't like Baldwin but he clearly was not at fault. He was clearly told that it was a cold gun. He had no reason to believe otherwise. They're just going after a big fish, as PP says, to get press.

If I hand you a gun and say it's not loaded, would you put it to your own head, or would you verify first? the person that fired the gun is always the one responsible.

If it’s a prop gun I probably wouldn’t check. A real gun is another story.

Well this was not a prop gun

Yes, this was a prop gun.

A prop gun is a model, cap gun, or non functional gun. This was a real gun, or she would still be alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know why it took this long, but it seems like it was the obvious course of action all along. I can only imagine the evidence must be damning, because otherwise they wouldn’t have brought charges.

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

This.

He should have been arrested from Day 1.

It was either manslaughter or murder, but it was clear that 1) there was a dead person and 2) Baldwin was the shooter

No it is more complicated. He is responsible but it is not like he was driving a car drunk and hit someone. He should have been more careful but a jury will take into consideration that he didn’t know the gun was armed. One thing that will not be helpful and I found out later is that you are never supposed to actually point at someone in a shot-editing makes it look real. Apparently he was asked to point for the shot but he should have declined. I do not think putting him in jail is helpful. I am sure he will live with this forever.

Is it SOP for an actor to check the gun? If not, I don’t think it’s his fault. If yes, then he was being negligent.

To me, it’s comparable to the difference between driving a car while being distracted by your phone and hitting someone vs. driving without any distractions and still hitting them. You most likely won’t be charged in the latter cases and that’s because they can’t prove negligence. Accidents do happen and people aren’t punished for true accidents where they did nothing wrong (meaning, no drinking, no drugs, no phone, no speeding, etc.).

So if it is not SOP for actors to check the gun, I don’t see how he is at fault for negligence.

It is the responsibility of the person holding the gun to confirm it is not loaded. Period. That is gun safety 101. It is irrelevant who else said it is ok first.

This would be like him driving drunk and his excuse being "They told me I was not drunk, so I drove"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know why it took this long, but it seems like it was the obvious course of action all along. I can only imagine the evidence must be damning, because otherwise they wouldn’t have brought charges.

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

This.

He should have been arrested from Day 1.

It was either manslaughter or murder, but it was clear that 1) there was a dead person and 2) Baldwin was the shooter

No it is more complicated. He is responsible but it is not like he was driving a car drunk and hit someone. He should have been more careful but a jury will take into consideration that he didn’t know the gun was armed. One thing that will not be helpful and I found out later is that you are never supposed to actually point at someone in a shot-editing makes it look real. Apparently he was asked to point for the shot but he should have declined. I do not think putting him in jail is helpful. I am sure he will live with this forever.

Is it SOP for an actor to check the gun? If not, I don’t think it’s his fault. If yes, then he was being negligent.

To me, it’s comparable to the difference between driving a car while being distracted by your phone and hitting someone vs. driving without any distractions and still hitting them. You most likely won’t be charged in the latter cases and that’s because they can’t prove negligence. Accidents do happen and people aren’t punished for true accidents where they did nothing wrong (meaning, no drinking, no drugs, no phone, no speeding, etc.).

So if it is not SOP for actors to check the gun, I don’t see how he is at fault for negligence.

It is the responsibility of the person holding the gun to confirm it is not loaded. Period. That is gun safety 101. It is irrelevant who else said it is ok first.

This would be like him driving drunk and his excuse being "They told me I was not drunk, so I drove"

This doesn’t make sense. Sounds like it is not SOP for actors to check their guns though.

[Anonymous]

I feel bad for Alec, that he felt the need to do this low budget movie. he said years ago he wanted to retire, but with one baby after another he has to keep working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel bad for Alec, that he felt the need to do this low budget movie. he said years ago he wanted to retire, but with one baby after another he has to keep working.

He’s an adult. No one is forced him to continue to have kids.

[Anonymous]

Looooooooser.

[Anonymous]

It wasn’t supposed to be unloaded it was supposed to be non lethal ammunition. It was the wrong ammunition. Actors are not expert enough to check this (and neither is anyone here) that is why you have to hire the firearms experts. But now thanks to these charges no actor will agree to handle any weapon in a movie again. Of course the film industry will fight this. This is absurd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. Someone DIED! A child friend mom wife.

The sad truth is that 15 Americans die every day in on the job accidents. I do not blame Baldwin at all; he was handed a prop by the armorer and just doing his job (like hundreds of other actors do every year in firearm-related scenes).

The armorer was negligent.

+1. I don't like Baldwin but he clearly was not at fault. He was clearly told that it was a cold gun. He had no reason to believe otherwise. They're just going after a big fish, as PP says, to get press.

If I hand you a gun and say it's not loaded, would you put it to your own head, or would you verify first? the person that fired the gun is always the one responsible.

If it’s a prop gun I probably wouldn’t check. A real gun is another story.

Well this was not a prop gun

Yes, this was a prop gun.

Wait, this is all a misunderstanding and there were no deaths?

[Anonymous]

Poor Hilaria!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know why it took this long, but it seems like it was the obvious course of action all along. I can only imagine the evidence must be damning, because otherwise they wouldn’t have brought charges.

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

This.

He should have been arrested from Day 1.

It was either manslaughter or murder, but it was clear that 1) there was a dead person and 2) Baldwin was the shooter

No it is more complicated. He is responsible but it is not like he was driving a car drunk and hit someone. He should have been more careful but a jury will take into consideration that he didn’t know the gun was armed. One thing that will not be helpful and I found out later is that you are never supposed to actually point at someone in a shot-editing makes it look real. Apparently he was asked to point for the shot but he should have declined. I do not think putting him in jail is helpful. I am sure he will live with this forever.

Is it SOP for an actor to check the gun? If not, I don’t think it’s his fault. If yes, then he was being negligent.

To me, it’s comparable to the difference between driving a car while being distracted by your phone and hitting someone vs. driving without any distractions and still hitting them. You most likely won’t be charged in the latter cases and that’s because they can’t prove negligence. Accidents do happen and people aren’t punished for true accidents where they did nothing wrong (meaning, no drinking, no drugs, no phone, no speeding, etc.).

So if it is not SOP for actors to check the gun, I don’t see how he is at fault for negligence.

It is the responsibility of the person holding the gun to confirm it is not loaded. Period. That is gun safety 101. It is irrelevant who else said it is ok first.

This would be like him driving drunk and his excuse being "They told me I was not drunk, so I drove"

This doesn’t make sense. Sounds like it is not SOP for actors to check their guns though.

No gun owner is going to find that reasonable. Even just a veteran who has been though basic would laugh at that excuse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor Hilaria!

🥒🥒

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t know why it took this long, but it seems like it was the obvious course of action all along. I can only imagine the evidence must be damning, because otherwise they wouldn’t have brought charges.

Will be interesting to watch this all unfold.

This.

He should have been arrested from Day 1.

It was either manslaughter or murder, but it was clear that 1) there was a dead person and 2) Baldwin was the shooter

No it is more complicated. He is responsible but it is not like he was driving a car drunk and hit someone. He should have been more careful but a jury will take into consideration that he didn’t know the gun was armed. One thing that will not be helpful and I found out later is that you are never supposed to actually point at someone in a shot-editing makes it look real. Apparently he was asked to point for the shot but he should have declined. I do not think putting him in jail is helpful. I am sure he will live with this forever.

Is it SOP for an actor to check the gun? If not, I don’t think it’s his fault. If yes, then he was being negligent.

To me, it’s comparable to the difference between driving a car while being distracted by your phone and hitting someone vs. driving without any distractions and still hitting them. You most likely won’t be charged in the latter cases and that’s because they can’t prove negligence. Accidents do happen and people aren’t punished for true accidents where they did nothing wrong (meaning, no drinking, no drugs, no phone, no speeding, etc.).

So if it is not SOP for actors to check the gun, I don’t see how he is at fault for negligence.

It is the responsibility of the person holding the gun to confirm it is not loaded. Period. That is gun safety 101. It is irrelevant who else said it is ok first.

This would be like him driving drunk and his excuse being "They told me I was not drunk, so I drove"

This doesn’t make sense. Sounds like it is not SOP for actors to check their guns though.

No gun owner is going to find that reasonable. Even just a veteran who has been though basic would laugh at that excuse

Good lord, an actor isn’t a “gun owner” or a veteran. They are literally playing a fake role, they often have very little experience with firearms. The armorer is hired to be the final safety check because actors & directors are not experts and are too distracted to also handle firearm safety!

I know lots of spun up folks want to go after Baldwin, but I think there’s no chance he is found guilty in a criminal proceeding. He won’t fare well in a civil suit.