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:

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.

And yet that’s been the SOP in Hollywood for many decades. Why? Because it is verboten to have a live round anywhere on the property, premises, or person. And because the actor and other crew are too busy with their duties to be focused on firearm safety. They have a job to do and it’s not firearm safety. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if - for liability reasons - they are contractually required to NOT disassemble the firearm or handle it in any way otherwise not instructed.

The unresolved question is how a live round ended up not only on the premises, but also in the firearm itself. We may never know, but im willing to bet the person responsible is someone who "grew up around guns".

[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: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.

The standard is without due caution and circumspection. What constitutes a reasonable amount of caution is going to be at issue. To me that's an uphill battle

[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: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.

And yet that’s been the SOP in Hollywood for many decades. Why? Because it is verboten to have a live round anywhere on the property, premises, or person. And because the actor and other crew are too busy with their duties to be focused on firearm safety. They have a job to do and it’s not firearm safety. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if - for liability reasons - they are contractually required to NOT disassemble the firearm or handle it in any way otherwise not instructed.

The unresolved question is how a live round ended up not only on the premises, but also in the firearm itself. We may never know, but im willing to bet the person responsible is someone who "grew up around guns".

The set was in rural new mexico. The crew got bored and enjoyed drunk target shooting. That much is already known

[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

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

That’s exactly who real gun owners are, or it’s their brother or cousin who did something like that.

They see it as a reasonable mistake.

A non gun owner thinks WTF you need to be able to take anpart and put together a gun blindfolded before you get a license.

Gun owners think oh well sh!t happens.

[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: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.

The standard is without due caution and circumspection. What constitutes a reasonable amount of caution is going to be at issue. To me that's an uphill battle

It is the law and reasonable to not allow live rounds on the set.

Baldwin is not guilty of shooting someone. He is guilty as the producer for allowing live rounds on the set… if they can prove he knew they were shooting targets when they got bored.

[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: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.

The standard is without due caution and circumspection. What constitutes a reasonable amount of caution is going to be at issue. To me that's an uphill battle

It is the law and reasonable to not allow live rounds on the set.

Baldwin is not guilty of shooting someone. He is guilty as the producer for allowing live rounds on the set… if they can prove he knew they were shooting targets when they got bored.

We already know that there were live rounds on sets and complaints about them. Is he going to claim ignorance about it?

[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.

That's the no true Scotsman fallacy.

[Anonymous]

I just want to know how Hilaria is explaining it to the kids

[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: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.

The standard is without due caution and circumspection. What constitutes a reasonable amount of caution is going to be at issue. To me that's an uphill battle

For the prosecution of ho has to prove he acted negligently. Not the defense.

It’s going to be hard to prove that he shouldn’t have trusted the armourer or assistant producer when that chain of command is the SOP when it comes to gun safety on set and there is no precedent that actors are supposed to check their own guns.

[Anonymous]

Lawyer here. It's frustrating to see the cycle of coverage without any serious independent analysis of whether this prosecutor could secure a conviction. In my view, it's a chargeable case, but securing a conviction is very unlikely. The prosecutor needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was criminally negligent with respect to the death. That's a very high standard, higher than ordinary negligence.

One theory of the case is that he should be liable because he pointed and shot the gun. But everybody agrees that he genuinely thought the gun was unloaded and entirely safe—they were rehearsing. In other words, he didn't think he was holding a deadly weapon at all, just a piece of metal. Gun safety adages are good and important, and I entirely agree with the principles about never pointing a weapon at anyone and verifying a weapon is unloaded yourself. But was failing to follow those principles, when he had been specifically told the gun was safe, could not check it himself, was pointing as directed for the scene, and didn't believe he was pulling the trigger, so outrageously unreasonable? In effect, a conviction here would convert gun safety best practices into criminal law under pretty much all circumstances. That would be unprecedented.

The other theory of the case is that he was negligent as a producer. But he was one of several producers and the production hired a professional to handle gun safety. It's tough to believe that his oversight of the production, under the circumstances, was so outrageously bad as to constitute a crime. The usual rule is that if there's intervening negligence, you're not liable.

I do think there's a much better case for the charge about negligence with respect to handling the gun (rather than the death). That's what someone already pleaded guilty 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: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.

The standard is without due caution and circumspection. What constitutes a reasonable amount of caution is going to be at issue. To me that's an uphill battle

It is the law and reasonable to not allow live rounds on the set.

Baldwin is not guilty of shooting someone. He is guilty as the producer for allowing live rounds on the set… if they can prove he knew they were shooting targets when they got bored.

We already know that there were live rounds on sets and complaints about them. Is he going to claim ignorance about it?

Of course he will, so would you.

The question is can the prosecution prove he knew.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Hilaria!

🥒🥒

Hola pepino!

[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

Real gun owners will think it was a reasonable mistake.

That's the no true Scotsman fallacy.

It’s actually the opposite of no true Scotsman

[Anonymous]

Why do they use real guns on movie sets? Seems crazy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Hilaria!

🥒🥒

Hola pepino!

fyp