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: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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Many movie companies are moving away from using prop guns and are only adding in "gunfire" effects in post-production. Given the current state of gun culture in this country, I don't think this is a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

The actor isn't supposed to check the gun, the way you're saying. The actor trusts the expert, the armorer. So does everyone else on the set, including the camera people, the director, the one who was killed and the one who was shot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

Well why hire an armorer - that bastion of firearm knowledge and expertise - if the actors are ultimately responsible for firearm safety? Remember, there should not have been any live rounds anywhere on the set. There really should have been no reason for any actor or crew member to believe the firearm had a live round.

[Anonymous]

He should be in jail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

Well why hire an armorer - that bastion of firearm knowledge and expertise - if the actors are ultimately responsible for firearm safety? Remember, there should not have been any live rounds anywhere on the set. There really should have been no reason for any actor or crew member to believe the firearm had a live round.

Because anyone with a basic knowledge of working safely knows that you multiple checks and layers of protection. You can't just hope one person catches every mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

Well why hire an armorer - that bastion of firearm knowledge and expertise - if the actors are ultimately responsible for firearm safety? Remember, there should not have been any live rounds anywhere on the set. There really should have been no reason for any actor or crew member to believe the firearm had a live round.

Because anyone with a basic knowledge of working safely knows that you multiple checks and layers of protection. You can't just hope one person catches every mistake.

I read online that SOP is the armourer checks then the assistant director checks. Both of those failed before it got up Baldwin.

The armourer has been charged and the assistant director took a plea deal.

I get that people dislike Baldwin because he’s so arrogant and obnoxious but I really don’t think he is at fault here. He wasn’t to know that the gun was loaded with real bullets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because you're charged doesn't mean you'll be found guilty. But i do think it's right he was charged.

+1 He was reckless, and bears responsibility as a producer for the film. But seems clear primary responsibility is the armorer who handed him a loaded gun!

If I recall correctly, the armorer did NOT hand him the gun. It was the assistant producer and the armorer was not a part of that hand off. That AP pled out and received 6 months probation. That AP shouldn’t have picked up the gun in the first place. The armorer should have secured the weapons away from all of these people.

[Anonymous]

Just out of curiosity. For everyone saying he is at fault and should be in jail. Do you think every accident leading to a fatality should receive jail time? Such as a driver who hits a person jaywalking in the street but wasn’t drinking, high, on their phone, speeding, blowing through stop signs or traffic lights, etc. Literally an accident. Should they be in jail too?

[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: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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

Well why hire an armorer - that bastion of firearm knowledge and expertise - if the actors are ultimately responsible for firearm safety? Remember, there should not have been any live rounds anywhere on the set. There really should have been no reason for any actor or crew member to believe the firearm had a live round.

Because anyone with a basic knowledge of working safely knows that you multiple checks and layers of protection. You can't just hope one person catches every mistake.

I read online that SOP is the armourer checks then the assistant director checks. Both of those failed before it got up Baldwin.

The armourer has been charged and the assistant director took a plea deal.

I get that people dislike Baldwin because he’s so arrogant and obnoxious but I really don’t think he is at fault here. He wasn’t to know that the gun was loaded with real bullets.

He shot someone. There is also overlap with the group who dislikes him and the group that grew up around guns. Anyone who has been around guns knows that every gun is loaded and you never trust anyone who tells you a gun they hand you is unloaded. Those are just rules that are taught early and are never questioned. I'm inclined to laugh when someone tells me that an actor is never supposed to check a gun because the concept of trusting that a gun is unloaded without verifying is comical to me.

[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: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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

Well why hire an armorer - that bastion of firearm knowledge and expertise - if the actors are ultimately responsible for firearm safety? Remember, there should not have been any live rounds anywhere on the set. There really should have been no reason for any actor or crew member to believe the firearm had a live round.

Because anyone with a basic knowledge of working safely knows that you multiple checks and layers of protection. You can't just hope one person catches every mistake.

I read online that SOP is the armourer checks then the assistant director checks. Both of those failed before it got up Baldwin.

The armourer has been charged and the assistant director took a plea deal.

I get that people dislike Baldwin because he’s so arrogant and obnoxious but I really don’t think he is at fault here. He wasn’t to know that the gun was loaded with real bullets.

He shot someone. There is also overlap with the group who dislikes him and the group that grew up around guns. Anyone who has been around guns knows that every gun is loaded and you never trust anyone who tells you a gun they hand you is unloaded. Those are just rules that are taught early and are never questioned. I'm inclined to laugh when someone tells me that an actor is never supposed to check a gun because the concept of trusting that a gun is unloaded without verifying is comical to me.

But we’re talking about legal liability here. If it’s not “the law” or even SOP for an actor to check the gun, then they weren’t being legally negligent and cannot be found guilty.

[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: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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

Well why hire an armorer - that bastion of firearm knowledge and expertise - if the actors are ultimately responsible for firearm safety? Remember, there should not have been any live rounds anywhere on the set. There really should have been no reason for any actor or crew member to believe the firearm had a live round.

Because anyone with a basic knowledge of working safely knows that you multiple checks and layers of protection. You can't just hope one person catches every mistake.

I read online that SOP is the armourer checks then the assistant director checks. Both of those failed before it got up Baldwin.

The armourer has been charged and the assistant director took a plea deal.

I get that people dislike Baldwin because he’s so arrogant and obnoxious but I really don’t think he is at fault here. He wasn’t to know that the gun was loaded with real bullets.

We probably read the same interview with an experienced movie armorer that explained the steps and it included showing the actor the gun and that it wasn’t load or blanks etc before handing it to the actor. None of those 3 checks happened here. The AP picked it up without the armorer and supposedly told Baldwin it was clear but neither of them went through the steps.

[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: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.

God forbid an actor handling a gun for a living have to go through a firearms safety course

Well why hire an armorer - that bastion of firearm knowledge and expertise - if the actors are ultimately responsible for firearm safety? Remember, there should not have been any live rounds anywhere on the set. There really should have been no reason for any actor or crew member to believe the firearm had a live round.

Because anyone with a basic knowledge of working safely knows that you multiple checks and layers of protection. You can't just hope one person catches every mistake.

I read online that SOP is the armourer checks then the assistant director checks. Both of those failed before it got up Baldwin.

The armourer has been charged and the assistant director took a plea deal.

I get that people dislike Baldwin because he’s so arrogant and obnoxious but I really don’t think he is at fault here. He wasn’t to know that the gun was loaded with real bullets.

We probably read the same interview with an experienced movie armorer that explained the steps and it included showing the actor the gun and that it wasn’t load or blanks etc before handing it to the actor. None of those 3 checks happened here. The AP picked it up without the armorer and supposedly told Baldwin it was clear but neither of them went through the steps.

Continued…sloppy, grossly negligent and two people were shot.

[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

Real gun owners will think it was a reasonable mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Real gun owners will think it was a reasonable mistake.

The only gun owners who would find it reasonable are the ones that manage to shoot themselves cleaning unloaded guns