Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Hilaria!

🥒🥒

Hola pepino!

fyp

Anonymous wrote:I used to really enjoy Alec as an actor. His personal life has caused my opinion of him to totally change over the last two years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems fine, he’ll probably get probation and they’ll make the point that actors are responsible for checking the gun even if the gun guy says they’re good to go. If that shouldn’t be the law, they’ll have to change the law, because it sounds like that’s the point of the charges. I don’t think they’re out for Alec Baldwin’s scalp.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

Here is the thing.... multiple "rules" were broken along the way. Baldwin was the producer who fired the fatal shot. It appears that protocols were very lax on set - so much so that several of the staff walked out prior to the incident.
I can't stand Maddow, but the expert she has on walks through all of the rules that were broken that resulted in the death of this cinematographer. He is on at the 4:45 point.

And, you do not need to be a gun expert to know basic gun safety.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems fine, he’ll probably get probation and they’ll make the point that actors are responsible for checking the gun even if the gun guy says they’re good to go. If that shouldn’t be the law, they’ll have to change the law, because it sounds like that’s the point of the charges. I don’t think they’re out for Alec Baldwin’s scalp.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems fine, he’ll probably get probation and they’ll make the point that actors are responsible for checking the gun even if the gun guy says they’re good to go. If that shouldn’t be the law, they’ll have to change the law, because it sounds like that’s the point of the charges. I don’t think they’re out for Alec Baldwin’s scalp.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

Dude is not just an actor. He was responsible for the whole production.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems fine, he’ll probably get probation and they’ll make the point that actors are responsible for checking the gun even if the gun guy says they’re good to go. If that shouldn’t be the law, they’ll have to change the law, because it sounds like that’s the point of the charges. I don’t think they’re out for Alec Baldwin’s scalp.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

Okay well that’s their point with the charges, right? They’re saying that’s the deal. So either they use dummy guns and CGI the firing, or everyone who touches the gun bears a certain, defined level of responsibility (check it, don’t point it at people, whatever else). It seems clear that the point of the prosecution is to lay down the law and force subsequent film sets to comply, thus hopefully making them safer. If actors want to refuse to handle live guns because of potential criminal liability, that’s fine! That’s the system working. They’re protected by strong unions and agents and the industry will adjust and have much better safety protocols, at least for a while. That seems appropriate given that a woman lost her life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems fine, he’ll probably get probation and they’ll make the point that actors are responsible for checking the gun even if the gun guy says they’re good to go. If that shouldn’t be the law, they’ll have to change the law, because it sounds like that’s the point of the charges. I don’t think they’re out for Alec Baldwin’s scalp.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This seems fine, he’ll probably get probation and they’ll make the point that actors are responsible for checking the gun even if the gun guy says they’re good to go. If that shouldn’t be the law, they’ll have to change the law, because it sounds like that’s the point of the charges. I don’t think they’re out for Alec Baldwin’s scalp.

Actors are actors, not gun experts. How would an actor have this expertise? If I were an actor, I would never agree to handle a gun if the rule was that I could have criminal liability for an unintended discharge and couldn't rely on the advice of the gun expert on set (the armorer).

Anonymous wrote:This seems fine, he’ll probably get probation and they’ll make the point that actors are responsible for checking the gun even if the gun guy says they’re good to go. If that shouldn’t be the law, they’ll have to change the law, because it sounds like that’s the point of the charges. I don’t think they’re out for Alec Baldwin’s scalp.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

This is the correct answer. For those of you who can't see it, why don't you pretend that Chris Pratt accidentally shot someone on The Terminal List or Kevin Costner accidentally shot someone on Yellowstone. Do the different politics of the actor/show help put things into perspective for you? Also, anyone with entertainment industry knowledge will know that big-name actors often secure producer credits as part of their compensation for appearing in the movie or show. Just like Sarah Jessica Parker wasn't really the mastermind behind Sex and The City - she is an actor who appeared in it and, once the show was a hit, had lots of leverage so that her agent/lawyer could get her an executive producer credit on the show.

So getting additional credit shouldn't come with additional responsibility? Nice.

Anonymous wrote:It makes total sense. He KILLED someone. And the armorer deserves to be severely punished - it was her job to make shooting safe.