Anonymous wrote:Oh I just read that Dave Halls signe da plea deal otherwise he would have been charged as well. He took a suspended sentence and probation.

Anonymous wrote:
What are New Mexico’s laws about what an an individuals responsibilities are around gun handling?

Could the DA argue to Baldwin “ screw the Armorer, YOU pointed a working gun at a human being and pulled the trigger, you and only you are responsible according to state law”.

In other words does the state laws allow the Armorer to fully take ownership of the legal responsibility for gun accidents? Like when I go skydiving for the first , I have to sign a waver to say that the company bears no responsibility for accidents. I can’t later blame the teacher for accidents.

Anonymous wrote:dying for a nanny tell all someday

Anonymous wrote:He has spoken against guns many times And it was hypocritical for him to use one on set

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The thing is you consider negligence and recklessness based on current standard practices. The prosecutor cannot just make up what they think industry standards are. You always have to look at industry safety practices and standards when assessing rhe culpability of individuals. You can't hold an individual to a standard beyond the norm and the assign criminal culpability based on that.

And the jury can decide that the standard or decide they were not actually sufficient or the normal in today's world.

He was rehearsing the shot as directed. He wasn’t playing around. This is a waste of tax dollars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The thing is you consider negligence and recklessness based on current standard practices. The prosecutor cannot just make up what they think industry standards are. You always have to look at industry safety practices and standards when assessing rhe culpability of individuals. You can't hold an individual to a standard beyond the norm and the assign criminal culpability based on that.

And the jury can decide that the standard or decide they were not actually sufficient or the normal in today's world.

He was rehearsing the shot as directed. He wasn’t playing around. This is a waste of tax dollars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok just reread an article.
It was absolutely a union set. They were working under an IA contract.
When some crew walked off for safety concerns they were replaced with non union workers. Those workers were still
Working under the CBA.
I would be interested to know if Baldwin was included in the emails regarding crew departure.
Also it’s ridiculous that the person who hired the armorer doesn’t face consequences. That’s the point where everything went wrong. They forced the armorer to do 2 jobs ( guns and props) At least I’m pretty sure I read that. That is where everything initially went wrong. She should have only had 1 job. The production company basically decided safety wasn’t important from the start.

Why not prosecute the union then?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The thing is you consider negligence and recklessness based on current standard practices. The prosecutor cannot just make up what they think industry standards are. You always have to look at industry safety practices and standards when assessing rhe culpability of individuals. You can't hold an individual to a standard beyond the norm and the assign criminal culpability based on that.

And the jury can decide that the standard or decide they were not actually sufficient or the normal in today's world.

He was rehearsing the shot as directed. He wasn’t playing around. This is a waste of tax dollars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You haven’t heard all the evidence. You should think - if I were in that jury I will have an open mind and decide after hearing all the facts. It doesn’t matter that he is famous. He shot and killed someone. Whether he should be held accountable remains to be seen.

He was handed a gun by the weapons handler that was not supposed to have live ammunition. By what logic is he responsible for killing Hutchins, regardless of whether he pulled the trigger? DA is trying to make a name for herself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The thing is you consider negligence and recklessness based on current standard practices. The prosecutor cannot just make up what they think industry standards are. You always have to look at industry safety practices and standards when assessing rhe culpability of individuals. You can't hold an individual to a standard beyond the norm and the assign criminal culpability based on that.

And the jury can decide that the standard or decide they were not actually sufficient or the normal in today's world.

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:

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.

The thing is you consider negligence and recklessness based on current standard practices. The prosecutor cannot just make up what they think industry standards are. You always have to look at industry safety practices and standards when assessing rhe culpability of individuals. You can't hold an individual to a standard beyond the norm and the assign criminal culpability based on that.