Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a fan of AB but, it was an accident. Intent matters.

If anything there should be regulations about prop guns. They should have to be non lethal.

Not for "involuntary manslaughter"

There is a mens rea requirement for even involuntary manslaughter. It’s different in that you don’t have to intend to kill someome but you do have to have intended the act that led to it. (Eg you had to have intended to drive 80 in a residential area. If someone rigged your car so that it drove 80 against your will, or if you had a stroke and slumped against the gas pedal, no mens rea). Clearly he intended to pull the gun. But he did not intend to pull a loaded gun. That’s essentially the issue for trial.

The NM Code says involuntary manslaughter includes killing, without malice, in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

So assuming the acting with prop gun was a lawful act, I suspect the issue for trial would be was Baldwin exercising due caution. For example, by relying on an armorer. While I personally, as a non-actor, would check the gun first, I haven't done this on a set 1000 times. Might be tough with a NM jury of non-actors. But who knows.

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2011/chapter30/article2/section30-2-3

Anonymous wrote: If the film industry insists on using real working guns then I say that the actor should officially be the final line of defence. That’s the safest protocol.

Why that’s even needed in 2023 is beyond me. We can CGI dinosaurs, aliens and erupting volcanoes, but crew are needlessly put in danger because real guns are needed?

The answer is not having any real guns on set, period.

If the film industry insists on using real working guns then I say that the actor should officially be the final line of defence. That’s the safest protocol.

Why that’s even needed in 2023 is beyond me. We can CGI dinosaurs, aliens and erupting volcanoes, but crew are needlessly put in danger because real guns are needed?

Anonymous wrote: The DA has been given Interviews in the last couple of days.

I think that her argument for Baldwin being negligent is that as a producer he should have know that gun safety protocols had been going wrong though the production so He should have assumed it would that time too and checked the gun himself.

She isn’t treating him as just an actor who could normally just rely on the Armorer and AD as protocol but as a producer with a birds eye view and responsibility of systemic safety issues.

She will fail. If only half of actors say they check the gun because they depend on other professionals to ensure their safety, then any actor can be found culpable. For every Clooney, there is a Baldwin.

Anonymous wrote:The other producers didn’t shoot the gun.

Ultimately many peoples mistakes ultimately added together to kill this poor person but I think they narrowed on the right people in order to achieve some justice through the law: the Armorer who was in charge of weapons, the 2nd AD who incorrectly declared “ cold gun” and the Lead Actor/producer who pulled the trigger.

It wasn't his decision to point the gun at the camera. The director told him to do that. Perhaps what is needed is for the director to have the actor check the gun before pointing it at anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being charged is different from being convicted.

Let's see.

And when he pleads guilty, people will say he’s not really guilty, he just settled to make it go away. Nope, you plead guilty, you are.

I think he needs to plead to the lessor of the 2 charges the jury will be adked to consider. He may do 18 months, but he can probably weather that financially, and it makes it so he doesnt have to continue to dump money into this situation. It's obvious he made some mistakes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excellent article that delves into the nuances of industry practice and the uphill battle the prosecutor faces in the case:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/arts/alec-baldwin-gun-safety-film.html

That’s their conclusion, but half the actors they talked said they personally check guns including an actor from this set.

Actors who are familiar with guns (Clooney for example grew up in Kentucky) probably do this because they’re qualified to do so. Actors who have no familiarity with guns have no business doing this.

If you are not "qualified" to check a gun, you have absolutely no business handling one. Full stop. Actor or not.

Anonymous wrote:Being charged is different from being convicted.

Let's see.

And when he pleads guilty, people will say he’s not really guilty, he just settled to make it go away. Nope, you plead guilty, you are.

The other producers didn’t shoot the gun.

Ultimately many peoples mistakes ultimately added together to kill this poor person but I think they narrowed on the right people in order to achieve some justice through the law: the Armorer who was in charge of weapons, the 2nd AD who incorrectly declared “ cold gun” and the Lead Actor/producer who pulled the trigger.

Actors who are familiar with guns (Clooney for example grew up in Kentucky) probably do this because they’re qualified to do so. Actors who have no familiarity with guns have no business doing this.

Except SAG, Actors’ Equity, etc all advise actors to check a gun before handling.

Anonymous wrote: The DA has been given Interviews in the last couple of days.

I think that her argument for Baldwin being negligent is that as a producer he should have know that gun safety protocols had been going wrong though the production so He should have assumed it would that time too and checked the gun himself.

She isn’t treating him as just an actor who could normally just rely on the Armorer and AD as protocol but as a producer with a birds eye view and responsibility of systemic safety issues.

Again, if they’re charging him as a producer they should also charge the half dozen or so other producers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Excellent article that delves into the nuances of industry practice and the uphill battle the prosecutor faces in the case:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/20/arts/alec-baldwin-gun-safety-film.html

That’s their conclusion, but half the actors they talked said they personally check guns including an actor from this set.

Actors who are familiar with guns (Clooney for example grew up in Kentucky) probably do this because they’re qualified to do so. Actors who have no familiarity with guns have no business doing this.

The director and camera people where not producers, they are the worker bees. Producers are the employers, they have an additional level of responsibility and duty of care.

Anonymous wrote: The DA has been given Interviews in the last couple of days.

I think that her argument for Baldwin being negligent is that as a producer he should have know that gun safety protocols had been going wrong though the production so He should have assumed it would that time too and checked the gun himself.

She isn’t treating him as just an actor who could normally just rely on the Armorer and AD as protocol but as a producer with a birds eye view and responsibility of systemic safety issues.

Would the director and camera person likewise have been aware that there were safety issues causing people to walk off the set and be replaced by non-union people? They should have checked before standing in front of the gun, as they did. By that logic.

Being charged is different from being convicted.

Let's see.