If I was on that jury, I would not find him guilty.

Anonymous wrote:

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

The gun was supposed to be loaded with dummy rounds. However, even dummy rounds can cause serious injuries. So, even then the gun should not be pointed at someone. Camera angles should be employed to protect everyone on the set. If that has happened here, the live round wouldn't have hit anyone. Even if he had used dummy rounds, his behavior was negligent.

https://m.republicworld.com/entertainment-news/hollywood-news/explainer-everything-you-need-to-know-about-prop-guns-on-movie-sets-and-how-they-work.html

That’s not what the article says. In fact it says the opposite:

“…but it is fairly common to have a gun pointed at the camera, and by extension the cinematographer, to get a certain angle.“

This is obvious as we’e all seen this in the movies, or scenes where actors point guns at eachother.

It goes on to say you are supposed to use a remote camera or a shield in these cases, as blanks can still have debris, but such a shield would not protect anyone from a live round, and frequently these safety corners are cut.

There were three misfires on the set before this happened involving blanks. One union crew had already walked off set due to unsafe conditions. The armorer is blaming the ammunition supplier for sending them any live rounds. The assistant who pled admitted he noticed a difference in the shape of the ammunition but assumed they were all blanks and did not verify this by pointing it out to the armorer. Presumably the armorer loaded all the guns anyway so her expertise apparently failed there, (although it is ridiculous that there is not a single obvious standard from manufacturers to differentiate all blanks from live ammunition, ie must be entirely green.)

The assistant also declared ‘cold gun’ which supposedly meant there was NO ammunition (live or blanks.). This could have affected the director’s decisions ie he’d decide to tell alec, ok point at the camera now so we can frame that shot. The armorer was not on site which apparently means no gun should have been in use, but presumably only the assistant who retrieved the gun would have known that. It’s highly unlikely an actor would be able to tell the difference between live and blank rounds, even if he did check (whoever loaded it did not.). Unless Baldwin somehow ordered the assistant to go get him the gun over protests and ignore safety protocols, I don’t see how he could be considered at fault.

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".

This is a pretty serious question. Who brought live rounds onto the set? Who put them into the gun? The likely answer is that the supplier of the supposedly dummy bullets was sloppy and mixed live rounds with dummy bullets. The more sinister answer is that someone on set was trying to sabotage the production, and that person mixed live rounds in with dummy bullets. But for the sinister hypothesis to be true, the person who mixed the live rounds with dummy bullets had to have been familiar with guns. I go with theory #1, but stranger things have happened, and the chances that it's theory #2 is not zero, although it's pretty close, IMHO.

I think the DA is grandstanding. Baldwin, as a producer, does bear some responsibility for lax safety on the set, but does that add up to manslaughter? There must be a lesser charge he can plea to, a misdemeanor. But even so, I think he'll walk. He will not be convicted if this case ever gets before a jury. The armorer, however, is probably looking at jail time. She's only 25, but if she took the job, it was her responsibility to perform it correctly. The AD who called "cold gun" took a plea, so he'll never work in film again. Because it was a completely preventable tragedy, someone will pay. I think all the producers will pay some sort of fine, and that makes sense to me. But manslaughter is a high bar, and I doubt they have the evidence to convict Baldwin.

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).

It's almost like it was irresponsible to fire a gun, given all that, right?

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.

Agree with this. They charged him with the lowest felony for this. It makes the point that no one can claim zero responsibility if they fire a gun at someone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He is a great actor, and he has made a series of life-ruining decisions. The only thing that stands in the way of me having empathy for him is his narcissistic rage. He has zero self awareness.

That said, I felt a pang of pity when I saw the images of his wife, who apparently decided to use the media frenzy for a pap walk with his kids. Anyone deserves better than that.

Yes that was absurd. Of all days… it appears she went in and out multiple times for maximum exposure. She really can’t help herself and has some serious personality disorder. I also noticed she blinged herself out for the 7am walk about. Random detail but I noticed how she left her jacket unzipped for the walk to and from the car. Call it a petty detail but I don’t know any mom at early morning school run who runs around with their breasts peeking over their shirt like that and jacket unzipped. You keep some things a little more private. It just indicates some weird attention seeking behavior to me.

Right. Let's stop hating on this woman, shall we? Jeff recently commented that Hilaria Baldwin triggered the most comments of any DCUM threads, of all time. I don't know why she riles you up like that, but you need to step back and just let her be, warts and all. I can tell from here you're not perfect either, PP!

Some people are famous primarily for their ability to rile people. Hilaria is reliant on her haters for her fame-- she is infamous. Otherwise she's an irrelevant celebrity wife. She knows this and actively foments controversy.

This case will be interesting for both what happens in the courtroom and also how Hilaria uses it to enlarge her audience.

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The armorer was negligent.

Agree.

I was recently at a gun range and a sign clearly said it was illegal to aim a gun at someone. I assume that’s what the prosecutor meant when she said it didn’t matter what’s protocol in Hollywood, that actual laws applied here.

Anonymous wrote:I dislike Alec Baldwin. But that doesn’t mean he should Be charged with manslaughter. Remember when Brandon Lee was killed on set? I don’t believe anyone went to jail.

They investigated for a really long time. Clearly, they think they have a strong case.

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

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

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

I agree. This will be the result. But the AZ DA gets a lot of attention for charging Baldwin, who can afford the very best defense attorneys. He will be acquitted if it ever gets to trial, which I doubt.

I dislike Alec Baldwin. But that doesn’t mean he should Be charged with manslaughter. Remember when Brandon Lee was killed on set? I don’t believe anyone went to jail.

He isn't charged based on his producer status. It is irrelevant.

The charge is incorrect and will be successfully defended.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He is a great actor, and he has made a series of life-ruining decisions. The only thing that stands in the way of me having empathy for him is his narcissistic rage. He has zero self awareness.

That said, I felt a pang of pity when I saw the images of his wife, who apparently decided to use the media frenzy for a pap walk with his kids. Anyone deserves better than that.

Yes that was absurd. Of all days… it appears she went in and out multiple times for maximum exposure. She really can’t help herself and has some serious personality disorder. I also noticed she blinged herself out for the 7am walk about. Random detail but I noticed how she left her jacket unzipped for the walk to and from the car. Call it a petty detail but I don’t know any mom at early morning school run who runs around with their breasts peeking over their shirt like that and jacket unzipped. You keep some things a little more private. It just indicates some weird attention seeking behavior to me.

Right. Let's stop hating on this woman, shall we? Jeff recently commented that Hilaria Baldwin triggered the most comments of any DCUM threads, of all time. I don't know why she riles you up like that, but you need to step back and just let her be, warts and all. I can tell from here you're not perfect either, PP!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Disagree. If a steelworker was operating a piece of heavy equipment and had been told by everyone responsible that the safety catch was on, and it turned out that the safety catch was off, would you hold the steelworker responsible for pulling the lever that he was told to pull?
It doesn’t sound like Baldwin was responsible for setting up the shot or checking the safety of the gun. I think the AD got a sweetheart deal here, and the armorer should serve time if it’s proven she knew there was live ammunition on set, and maybe even if she didn’t (because she failed to adequately secure either the firearm or the blanks). I think at some point she was trying to blame the local supplier that supposedly supplied the blanks. But the evidence about them shooting targets in the off hours seems to belie that story.

PP you replied to. You misinterpret what I wrote. I want him charged. Because he killed someone. Not charging would be in defiance of all logic, law and morality. But as you said, maybe he will not be found guilty. That will be up to the justice system to determine. I think there is a grey area in terms of responsibility - how much is on the actor to check the gun, and how much is on the armorer whose job it is to make guns safe? I feel that it's the armorer's responsibility more than the actor's. But the actor is responsible too. And in this case, the actor killed someone. So it's tricky. I will repeat that I hope the armorer gets serious consequences - she seems utterly unqualified and irresponsible. It behoves all armorers on film sets to be more vigilant after this case. I don't want to put added burden on actors to constantly have to worry about whether the gun they're waving about it going to shoot and kill someone. If Baldwin gets off, I won't cry. If he gets minimum sentencing, I won't cry either. He will not get more than the minimum, because that would be distinctly unfair.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

He is a great actor, and he has made a series of life-ruining decisions. The only thing that stands in the way of me having empathy for him is his narcissistic rage. He has zero self awareness.

That said, I felt a pang of pity when I saw the images of his wife, who apparently decided to use the media frenzy for a pap walk with his kids. Anyone deserves better than that.

Yes that was absurd. Of all days… it appears she went in and out multiple times for maximum exposure. She really can’t help herself and has some serious personality disorder. I also noticed she blinged herself out for the 7am walk about. Random detail but I noticed how she left her jacket unzipped for the walk to and from the car. Call it a petty detail but I don’t know any mom at early morning school run who runs around with their breasts peeking over their shirt like that and jacket unzipped. You keep some things a little more private. It just indicates some weird attention seeking behavior to me.