Alec Baldwin charged again
- Thread starter Jmoser
- Start date
- Replies 110
- Views 2,862
This should have happened with no question the first time around. Instead of the constant finger pointing to everyone except the person that pulled the trigger. This jerk off has made alot of his money making movies with firearms and should be completely aware of what happens when a trigger is pulled.
I must be the outlier. I don't think it's manslaughter. I think it's a horrible incident and not a criminal offense (against Baldwin). He wasn't acting recklessly he was simply acting. There will never be a conviction in this case.
Tim
Checked Out
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Vendor
Multi-Factor Enabled
I hear what you're saying.
However, there were firearms on set capable of firing live ammunition. There were or should have been industry standard protocols being followed to ensure safety. Those protocols obviously were not followed. Alec is the one ultimately responsible.
If the scene had called for him to pull the trigger on himself I’m pretty sure he would have double and triple checked the gun first.
You are correct. https://www.csatf.org/01_safety_bltn_firearms/
It has been a huge deal since Brandon Lee was killed on the set of The Crow.
Alec Baldwin film tragedy: What are the rules for guns on movie sets?
The regulations are under scrutiny after the death of a film-maker on the set of an Alec Baldwin film.
www.bbc.com
I get what you are saying and I basically agree with you.
He is an ass clown who pretends to be an expert about the use of firearms.
You make a valid point.
However, he has used his fame and considerable wealth to directly undermine the great constitution of this fine land. He is a traitor, and a seditious zealot. He cavorts in the benefits of this country while simultaneously pretending he knows what is best for us. He deserves to be mercilessly eviscerated.
No quarter given, nor asked for.
I say he is the one who's responsible. Wether that equates to manslaughter is a jury's call I guess. There was no reason for him to point the weapon at anyone even if they were shooting a scene, which they weren't. If he needed to point the gun to establish the picture angle he didn't have to aim center mass, he could have aimed over the shoulder or beside the person. The camera wouldn't be able to show the difference.
He not only aimed at a person who wasn't in the shot but he pulled the trigger. Eff him.
He not only aimed at a person who wasn't in the shot but he pulled the trigger. Eff him.
I understand he was one of the executive producers which at the very least makes him civilly liable for accidents leading to death on set. Not necessarily manslaughter, a criminal felony, but could cost him a lot of money. I’d like to think they require some type of insurance but who knows.
Last edited:
Yep. He was one of the production team that was setting the working conditions.
I thought he was not just an actor but also the director and producer. That should carry some responsibility to ensure the cast and crew members are safe. Can you delegate responsibility?
If charges and a trial had proceeded as they would have against an average person, they would have been convicted and would have already served their time (18 months is the maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter in New Mexico).
But Baldwin isn't average and a trial and prison sentence would have interfered with the movie he needed to finish.
We see it over and over the elite regardless of what they do very very rarely ever get punished and even when they do its a slap on the wrist compared to what regular joe would get. Status should never make anyone above the law. But hollyweirdos, athletes, government and other fat cats don't have the same set of laws.
It shouldn't matter whether he was an actor on the set of a movie, with or without a firearms "expert" present. The fact of the matter is he failed to check what his weapon was loaded with. Being ignorant about firearms would not be defense for us peons any more than it should be for him. I don't get what is so hard to understand about that. Doesn't matter if I like the guy or not, it just is what it is.
Last edited:
Is the director, producer, or someone else responsible for the safety director?
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Wow. I remember that like it was yesterday. I think I’m one of the few that loved that movie and was looking forward to more from Brandon. And then I saw the credits.You are correct. https://www.csatf.org/01_safety_bltn_firearms/
It has been a huge deal since Brandon Lee was killed on the set of The Crow.
View attachment 729444Alec Baldwin film tragedy: What are the rules for guns on movie sets?
The regulations are under scrutiny after the death of a film-maker on the set of an Alec Baldwin film.
You know...if he'd have left the country back in 2000 like the SAID he was going to do if George W. Bush were elected, this would have never happened.
Ahhhh...consequences, consequences!
Ahhhh...consequences, consequences!
That last one evidently was not done. The actor/director/producer let the safety director skip that part. Perhaps it is not mandatory. The revolver was not supposed to be loaded, but should the actors be allowed to be shown that it was not loaded?
We can use your analogy but a key detail would have to change. Nobody told him to drive towards the sidewalk or pull the rope of the bell.
In fact, the official stance is to not drive or pull and he does it anyway.
Now, the steering wheel or the bell not being hooked-up properly contributed to the event resulting in a fatality, but alone they don't cause the fatality.
Last edited:
Several of them weren't done. The person he pointed the gun at and subsequently shot wasn't even an actor in a scene.
Last edited:
You are reaching too far by ignoring general standards of reasonableness.
It would not be reasonable or customary for an average person told to drive a car to check the steering linkage beforehand.
It would not be reasonable or customary for an average person told to pull a bell rope to check whether the bell was securely mounted.
The cumulative experience of our society is that a car's steering linkage is not often disconnected and that bell mountings do not often come apart.
It is reasonable and customary for an average person told to hold a gun to not point it at someone and to not pull the trigger while doing so.
The cumulative experience of our society is that pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger often has bad outcomes, so those actions are to be avoided by reasonable people.
Last edited:
OP
Jmoser
Well-Known Member
Captain of the ship is accountable no matter what.
The me, the matter is simple: did he follow the rules and protocols for weapon handling on the set.
That he’s a rich, pompous, arrogant, a-hole doesn’t matter. The gun handling rules that we, not on a movie set follow, are not a factor. They do a lot of stunts on movie sets that would be stupid and dangerous performed elsewhere. They have procedures and protocols and people for these things.
That he’s a rich, pompous, arrogant, a-hole doesn’t matter. The gun handling rules that we, not on a movie set follow, are not a factor. They do a lot of stunts on movie sets that would be stupid and dangerous performed elsewhere. They have procedures and protocols and people for these things.
So that we don't have to give uneducated guesses as to what Mr. Baldwin's legal and moral culpability may have been, I offer this legal analysis from the NY Times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that a grand jury has indicted Alec Baldwin on a charge of involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the film “Rust” in New Mexico in 2021, the contours of the looming legal battle are coming into focus.
If the case reaches trial, the challenge prosecutors face will be convincing a jury that Mr. Baldwin was guilty of either the negligent use of a firearm or of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety of others” — even though investigators found he was told on the day of the shooting that the gun he was rehearsing with contained no live rounds, and even though the film set was not supposed to have any live ammunition at all.
The challenge Mr. Baldwin’s defense team faces will be to explain why the gun fired. Mr. Baldwin has maintained all along that he did not pull the trigger that day as he rehearsed a scene in which he draws a revolver, saying that the gun discharged after he pulled the hammer back and released it. A forensic report commissioned by the prosecution determined that he must have pulled the trigger for the gun to go off, a finding that contributed to its decision to revive the criminal case against Mr. Baldwin.
Legal experts were divided on the merits of reviving the case, noting that traditional gun safety rules — such as never pointing a functional gun toward someone — do not always apply on film sets, and that investigators found he had been assured by the film’s safety crew that the gun did not contain live ammunition.
“The notion that you never point a gun at someone would sort of undo westerns for the past 100 years,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge.
The outcome of the case at trial — the State of New Mexico vs. Alexander (Alec) Rae Baldwin — would hinge on how jurors view two key questions: Should Mr. Baldwin have known of the danger involved in his actions that day? And, using a term of art in criminal law, did he act with a “willful disregard for the safety of others”?
The grand jury indictment required that at least eight out of 12 jurors found probable cause that Mr. Baldwin committed a crime. The standard at trial is much higher: A jury must determine, unanimously, that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
“I think it’s an uphill battle,” said Steve Aarons, a veteran defense lawyer in New Mexico. “There is no reason for live rounds to be there. It’s a little different than other situations where you have a firearm and you assume any bullet that is there would be a live round.”
There is a complex web of factors that would quite likely come up at trial, including the condition of the gun, which broke during F.B.I. testing, and Mr. Baldwin’s responsibility as a producer on the film.
(Mr. Baldwin has asserted that even though he was a producer, he had no involvement in hiring crew members, including the movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for guns and ammunition on the set. She has pleaded not guilty in the involuntary manslaughter case against her.)
But the prosecutors will probably take the straightforward position that anyone who agrees to handle a gun is responsible for what happens next, said Joshua Kastenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of New Mexico and a former prosecutor.
“You could make the argument that regardless of the condition of the weapon, there was an independent duty of every person that was going to put their hands on that weapon that day to ask and make sure that it was either safe or unloaded,” he said, though he said that proving that kind of argument to a jury is often challenging.
After the grand jury indicted Mr. Baldwin on Friday, his lawyers — who have called the revived prosecution “misguided” — said that they looked forward to their day in court. Kari T. Morrissey, one of the special prosecutors handling the case, declined to elaborate on the case that was presented to the grand jury.
It was the second time Mr. Baldwin found himself facing a criminal charge in connection with the shooting. In an earlier case that was dropped in April, prosecutors had accused him of “extremely reckless acts” in the shooting. In a statement of probable cause last year they had accused him of getting insufficient firearms training, of failing to deal with safety complaints on set in his capacity as one of the film’s producers, of “putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used” and of pointing the firearm at the film’s cinematographer and director.
Mr. Baldwin has maintained all along that he was not responsible for the tragedy, noting that someone else had put live ammunition in the gun and that the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, had been directing where he pointed the gun. “I know in my heart that I’m not responsible for what happened to her,” Mr. Baldwin told a detective following the shooting.
The new case, said Marc A. Grano, a lawyer and former prosecutor in New Mexico, will most likely become a back and forth over what is “standard practice” in the film and TV industry, a battle that may include conflicting opinions and examples.
After the original criminal case was brought against Mr. Baldwin last year, SAG-AFTRA, the union representing film and TV actors, opposed the prosecutors’ contention that actors were responsible for ensuring that the guns they were handed on set were safe to handle, saying, “an actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert.”
The most widely used written protocols around gun use on sets are outlined in documents called Safety Bulletins No. 1 and No. 2, which were created by a team of representatives from the unions and the major studios, and which will most likely be used as evidence in court.
The fatal shooting of Ms. Hutchins prompted the first revisions to those safety guidelines in two decades. The new guidelines, published in December, are longer and more detailed than the old ones, and stress that safety meetings should include instructions on how to distinguish between blank ammunition, which have gunpowder but not projectiles, and dummy rounds, which are inert and cannot be fired.
As before, they make it clear that live ammunition is not supposed to be used on sets. “Live ammunition,” the bulletin says, “is never to be used on set nor brought onto any work location, including any studio lot, stage or location” except in rare cases if it meets specific exceptions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that a grand jury has indicted Alec Baldwin on a charge of involuntary manslaughter for the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the set of the film “Rust” in New Mexico in 2021, the contours of the looming legal battle are coming into focus.
If the case reaches trial, the challenge prosecutors face will be convincing a jury that Mr. Baldwin was guilty of either the negligent use of a firearm or of acting with “total disregard or indifference for the safety of others” — even though investigators found he was told on the day of the shooting that the gun he was rehearsing with contained no live rounds, and even though the film set was not supposed to have any live ammunition at all.
The challenge Mr. Baldwin’s defense team faces will be to explain why the gun fired. Mr. Baldwin has maintained all along that he did not pull the trigger that day as he rehearsed a scene in which he draws a revolver, saying that the gun discharged after he pulled the hammer back and released it. A forensic report commissioned by the prosecution determined that he must have pulled the trigger for the gun to go off, a finding that contributed to its decision to revive the criminal case against Mr. Baldwin.
Legal experts were divided on the merits of reviving the case, noting that traditional gun safety rules — such as never pointing a functional gun toward someone — do not always apply on film sets, and that investigators found he had been assured by the film’s safety crew that the gun did not contain live ammunition.
“The notion that you never point a gun at someone would sort of undo westerns for the past 100 years,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge.
The outcome of the case at trial — the State of New Mexico vs. Alexander (Alec) Rae Baldwin — would hinge on how jurors view two key questions: Should Mr. Baldwin have known of the danger involved in his actions that day? And, using a term of art in criminal law, did he act with a “willful disregard for the safety of others”?
The grand jury indictment required that at least eight out of 12 jurors found probable cause that Mr. Baldwin committed a crime. The standard at trial is much higher: A jury must determine, unanimously, that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
“I think it’s an uphill battle,” said Steve Aarons, a veteran defense lawyer in New Mexico. “There is no reason for live rounds to be there. It’s a little different than other situations where you have a firearm and you assume any bullet that is there would be a live round.”
There is a complex web of factors that would quite likely come up at trial, including the condition of the gun, which broke during F.B.I. testing, and Mr. Baldwin’s responsibility as a producer on the film.
(Mr. Baldwin has asserted that even though he was a producer, he had no involvement in hiring crew members, including the movie’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was responsible for guns and ammunition on the set. She has pleaded not guilty in the involuntary manslaughter case against her.)
But the prosecutors will probably take the straightforward position that anyone who agrees to handle a gun is responsible for what happens next, said Joshua Kastenberg, a criminal law professor at the University of New Mexico and a former prosecutor.
“You could make the argument that regardless of the condition of the weapon, there was an independent duty of every person that was going to put their hands on that weapon that day to ask and make sure that it was either safe or unloaded,” he said, though he said that proving that kind of argument to a jury is often challenging.
After the grand jury indicted Mr. Baldwin on Friday, his lawyers — who have called the revived prosecution “misguided” — said that they looked forward to their day in court. Kari T. Morrissey, one of the special prosecutors handling the case, declined to elaborate on the case that was presented to the grand jury.
It was the second time Mr. Baldwin found himself facing a criminal charge in connection with the shooting. In an earlier case that was dropped in April, prosecutors had accused him of “extremely reckless acts” in the shooting. In a statement of probable cause last year they had accused him of getting insufficient firearms training, of failing to deal with safety complaints on set in his capacity as one of the film’s producers, of “putting his finger on the trigger of a real firearm when a replica or rubber gun should have been used” and of pointing the firearm at the film’s cinematographer and director.
Mr. Baldwin has maintained all along that he was not responsible for the tragedy, noting that someone else had put live ammunition in the gun and that the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins, had been directing where he pointed the gun. “I know in my heart that I’m not responsible for what happened to her,” Mr. Baldwin told a detective following the shooting.
The new case, said Marc A. Grano, a lawyer and former prosecutor in New Mexico, will most likely become a back and forth over what is “standard practice” in the film and TV industry, a battle that may include conflicting opinions and examples.
After the original criminal case was brought against Mr. Baldwin last year, SAG-AFTRA, the union representing film and TV actors, opposed the prosecutors’ contention that actors were responsible for ensuring that the guns they were handed on set were safe to handle, saying, “an actor’s job is not to be a firearms or weapons expert.”
The most widely used written protocols around gun use on sets are outlined in documents called Safety Bulletins No. 1 and No. 2, which were created by a team of representatives from the unions and the major studios, and which will most likely be used as evidence in court.
The fatal shooting of Ms. Hutchins prompted the first revisions to those safety guidelines in two decades. The new guidelines, published in December, are longer and more detailed than the old ones, and stress that safety meetings should include instructions on how to distinguish between blank ammunition, which have gunpowder but not projectiles, and dummy rounds, which are inert and cannot be fired.
As before, they make it clear that live ammunition is not supposed to be used on sets. “Live ammunition,” the bulletin says, “is never to be used on set nor brought onto any work location, including any studio lot, stage or location” except in rare cases if it meets specific exceptions.
As I said before. There is no reason to point the gun directly at someone even to film a movie. The camera can't tell if a gun is pointed directly at someone or off to the side. In this case they weren't even filming.
That is the same litany of excuses and misdirection that the leftist media has been promoting all along.
ronn47
Where's the Scotch?
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Hmmm...really? I'm pretty sure the camera could tell in these.
Especially the first one. (Which, if you look closely, you'll find it's obviously a fake prop gun, not even cocked.)
The Screen Actors Guild has comprehensive and specific guidelines for handing firearms on TV and movie sets. Included are such basics as never point a firearm at anyone and keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot, which anybody with two functioning brain cells would know.
There are consequences to killing a person through stupidity and recklessness.
There are consequences to killing a person through stupidity and recklessness.
Last edited:
What a waste of time. I hope he sues the state for wrongful/malicious prosecution.
That he’s an ass doesn’t mean that he’s criminally responsible or that we should applaud this waste of taxpayer resources.
I swear, some of you sound just like a dead gangbanger’s mother, “they could have shot him in the leg” or “they could have used a smaller caliber,” but that’s all hindsight bs.
It sucks, but he settled with the estate, let it go.
That he’s an ass doesn’t mean that he’s criminally responsible or that we should applaud this waste of taxpayer resources.
I swear, some of you sound just like a dead gangbanger’s mother, “they could have shot him in the leg” or “they could have used a smaller caliber,” but that’s all hindsight bs.
It sucks, but he settled with the estate, let it go.
Studentofthegun
From the Land of White Pine and Moonshine
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
We aren’t supposed to judge a book by its cover but…
The person in charge of the firearms is Thell Reed’s daughter. She’s apparently incompetent. I guess this is unsurprising.
The person in charge of the firearms is Thell Reed’s daughter. She’s apparently incompetent. I guess this is unsurprising.
Alabamacoastie
Adiutor vicinorum
Puddle Pirate
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
I recently rewatched it and thought it was still just as good as the first time I saw it when I was 12 or 13.
I'm considering showing it to my daughters. They are really into horror/ apocalypse/ action movies... My only fear is that they will immediately start dressing in all black and ask for black eyeliner...
