Reply to Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Alec Baldwin now charged with involuntary manslaughter by New Mexico authorities "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][b]Don’t know why it took this long,[/b] 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. [/quote]

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[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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"[/quote]

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

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

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. [/quote]

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

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.

[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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 [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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

Of course he will, so would you.

The question is can the prosecution prove he knew.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics