Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Alec Baldwin killed a woman on set with prop gun (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sinn Fein
- Start date
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
They’re a bunch of parasites, but TMZ happens to nail this stuff pretty often as well. Here is what they said:
Baldwin's attorney, Alex Spiro, claimed authorities intentionally concealed evidence of live ammo on the set.
Police investigator Marissa Poppell testified she had been instructed by her superiors to create a report documenting that police had received ammunition and to file it under a different case number than the "Rust" case. In other words, it wouldn't be visible to the defense.
Psychopav
Help us, Joebi-Wan Brynobi, you're our only ho
PLEASE stop referring to her as an "investigator". Ms. Poppell is a Crime. Scene. Technician., thank you very much.
scoobus
Footballguy
Ok, but how would doing this be beneficial for the prosecution in this case?
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Not from her though. It appears it came from the prop person, who was not tasked with guns.
BLOCKED_PUNT
Footballguy
haven't followed this case but I've heard about it and wanted to see what the consensus was but I saw
if you are drunk and you get behind the wheel of a 1 ton bullet then you are commiting a crime and if that crime results in a death it's involuntary manslaughter. One could make the argument (and I'm sure someone has) that a drunk doesn't understand what they are doing but they are being reckless and irresponsible with their actions. Harsh penalties, including jail time, should very much be on the table.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?
BLOCKED_PUNT
Footballguy
ghostguy123
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
Well, obvs.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I’m not really familiar enough with what everyone’s role/responsibility is supposed to be regarding that stuff so I could be wrong. I just assumed that the armorer was overall responsible for all that stuff so even if the live ammo was from the prop person, it would have been her responsibility to make sure the prop person didn’t bring live ammo onto set. But I could totally be wrong.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I could be misreading but I think @ghostguy123 was using the drunk driver as an example of someone that was doing something illegal and SHOULD be imprisoned. He was saying this Rust case is not like that.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I think it’s important to note that we don’t have to prove it was evidence that would destroy the prosecution’s case. It does have to be material and potentially exculpatory or capable of being used for impeachment purposes. I think it meets that test simply by opening up some avenue of stuff being potentially on the set in a way the armorer might not know about. Sure, you can always argue that she still had a responsibility when she handed the actors guns. But the more attenuated the responsibility is, the less it looks like criminal negligence as opposed to civil negligence.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I believe one of the defense’s arguments is that it was other people’s negligence who should have known better that lead to their being a real gun with live ammo in it and that he was innocent.
BLOCKED_PUNT
Footballguy
He's saying, or at least the way that I keep reading it, is that he was an accident so Baldwin shouldn't face jail time. and then said that a car wreck caused by drunk driving isn't illegal but it is illegal and immoral (IMO) to drive while drunk. He IS right that someone that gets in an auto accident that doesn't result in death probably won't face jail time but if you read Dezbelief post then it does make it sound like Baldwin was being willfully negligent.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
That post doesn't really match what happened, which is on camera. No live ammo should have been anywhere near that set. Unless Baldwin brought it there or knew it was there, he just isn't guilty of anything at all. It was not his job or responsibility at all.
Last edited:
culdeus
Footballguy
I'm shocked this is still going. The armorer went to jail already.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
Nobody ever replied to the above
"
This wasn't asked of me, but here's my take. Baldwin deserves prison time. Several actions on his part demonstrates he believes his time and money is more important than the safety of others. The courts need to ingraine into all employers' head that safety should come first in the workplace. Ranking pennies over people is perhaps my number one pet peeve. Baldwin himself required the Armorer on set to not only serve as armorer but to also take on additional duties as well to cut costs. These additional duties caused the more experienced Armorers that Baldwin first offered the position to pass on the job, citing safety would suffer. Second Baldwin refused more than once gun safety lessons that the Armorer tried to give him. Third Baldwin continued to ignore safety on the set even after the set became a dangerous work environment. There was not one but two accidental discharges on set prior to the killing of Elena Hutchinson. At least one of the accidental discharges occurred in the very same room Ms Hutchinson was later fatally shot. These discharges caused many of the more experienced support staff to walk off the set. Fourth the terrible tragedy did not happen during filming, it happened when Baldwin was recklessly playing with the gun while waiting on others to finish their lunch. There was no need for the gun to be pointed anywhere near a camera or a person when it accidentally discharged killing Ms Hutchinson. IMO gross negligence on Baldwin's part on at least 4 occasions caused the death of another human being.
I still can't fathom why accidental discharges were tolerated on the set of a movie with an accidental discharge as the central theme of the plot. It's almost as if Baldwin desired accidental discharges on set."
massraider
Footballguy
Here for the celebrity bloodlust!
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
This is the most important point IMO. Most of the other stuff being brought up is a distractor to back-solve for a preferred outcome.
I’d love to see Alec Baldwin in prison because he’s a jackass. I’ve met him (and his brother Billy, though in separate interactions). He was every bit as obnoxious and rude as you might expect. But he isn’t guilty of a crime here.
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Just like OJ! I knew OJ was framed!
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Of course driving drunk is illegal, hence the phrase "... doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk." Perhaps poorly phrased, but it makes no sense to assume the poster is equating a purely accidental act with the intentional act of drunk driving. He's drawing a contrast, not equating the two situations in terms of intent and "accidental conduct."
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
There's also the fact that the prosecutor doesn't have the right to decide what the defense might find exculpatory, and this stuff isn't really a close call. It probably was the factor that lead to multiple resignations in her office. Her testimony is damning, if not downright pathetic.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
youtu.be
culdeus
Footballguy
How does this change anything?
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
It doesn’t. It’s another indictment of the armorer’s behavior.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
On the behavior of the whole set, it was an unsafe working environment.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
Pretty much so. I just haven't seen any evidence of the other stuff you bring up.
Baldwin likely deserves a major case of crabs. He doesn't deserve prison time.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
The evidence is in this thread. Some links starting around page 5.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
Alec Baldwin Seemed 'Distracted,' Missed Required Firearm Training Prior to Shooting: Prosecutors
The probable cause filing for Alec Baldwin's criminal charges claimed the actor was 'talking on his cell phone to his family during the training' during an abbreviated training session he did attend on set
In the district attorney's office's special investigator Robert Shilling's probable cause filing, he writes that Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming." The filing pointed out that Gutierrez-Reed said in her deposition that Baldwin had "limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded."
Gutierrez-Reed also said, per the documents, that Baldwin did attend a 30-minute training session but appeared "distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."
Dezbelief
Footballguy
'Rust' crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting
At least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to production managers about gun safety on the set.
www.latimes.com
Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun, a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set to protest working conditions.
The camera operators and their assistants were frustrated by the conditions surrounding the low-budget film, including complaints about long hours, long commutes and waiting for their paychecks, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment.
Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set on Saturday said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges.
Baldwin’s stunt double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” — lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks — two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.
“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” a crew member said. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”
A colleague was so alarmed by the prop gun misfires that he sent a text message to the unit production manager. “We’ve now had 3 accidental discharges. This is super unsafe,” according to a copy of the message reviewed by The Times.
“Corners were being cut — and they brought in nonunion people so they could continue shooting,” the knowledgeable person said.
The shooting occurred about six hours after the union camera crew left.
Zow
Footballguy
I'll chime in with some thoughts and additional explanation of what occurred here to get this case dismissed because this is a pretty significant circumstance related to a defendant's constitutional right to due process.
There's also the fact that the prosecutor doesn't have the right to decide what the defense might find exculpatory, and this stuff isn't really a close call. It probably was the factor that lead to multiple resignations in her office. Her testimony is damning, if not downright pathetic.
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
There is a significant SCOTUS (at the level of Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, etc.) decision called Brady v. Maryland. You can hear the defense attorney in the Baldwin Youtube clip mention it. In short, Brady requires that the State (i.e. prosecutors, law enforcement, really any government agent or agency involved in the prosecution) turn over all relevant or material evidence to the defense - whether that evidence be inculpatory (having a tendency to suggest that the defendant is guilty), exculpatory (having a tendency to show that the defendant is not guilty), or relevant but likely inadmissible at trial (e.g. evidence of a rape victim have consensual intercourse with another man ten minutes prior or if she sent the defendant nudes prior to the incident or some such that would likely be inadmissible due to the rape shield law). Prior to Brady, the State was only disclosing to the defense the evidence the State intended to use at trial. In the Brady case, for example, the State did not tell the defense about another suspect's confession to the crime. Brady declared this practice unconstitutional and, since the law tends to like blanket rules, prosecutors are now required to turn over all relevant evidence. Full stop.
In practice, what this means is that, generally, the State just turns over all of its evidence to the defense. Usually, the "evidence" in any given Felony case includes any and all police reports, copies of any recorded interviews, all body camera footage, and any results or reports from any forensic testing (e.g. fingerprint analysis, testing a substance for unlawful drugs, a ballistic report, autopsy, etc.). With technology ever-changing, the logistical way this now usually goes down is that the investigating police agency upload its reports, videos, etc. to an online portal/database with the prosecutor's office, the prosecutor's office reviews the evidence for any redactions, then that office will either by emailed attachments or, now more commonly, via a limited access to an online portal, get that evidence to the defense. This is why it usually takes the State a few weeks to months to get the defense evidence in any particular case.
The above process is generally handled by administrative professionals within those agencies. I point that out to explain that, because this process involves humans engaging in something generally boring and tedious, genuine mistakes or errors due occur. In other words, when I work a case and am conducting a defense interview or just discussing the matter informally with the prosecutor, it's common for us to discover that a particular report was overlooked and not disclosed to me. Usually, this is discovered well in advance of trial and, usually, the evidence is "bad" for me anyway so it's a no harm no foul type situation where my only remedy would be to demand the state reinstate a plea offer that expired prior to me receiving the evidence - but, frankly, usually my client rejected the plea for some reason and isn't going to change his mind just because we got some additional report. Also, in circumstances where there is a genuine concern for a victim's privacy rights and the evidence in question really is just tangentially relevant at best, prosecutors can and will sometimes submit that evidence to the trial judge for what's called an "in camera" (basically, "in private") review and the judge will determine whether the defense gets it.
Brady is so very important because, as a defense attorney (especially in AZ where we have heightened victim's rights which really does hamper my ability to investigate an alleged victim), my ability to investigate a situation after the fact is very limited so the practical reality is that I really have to rely on the State to disclose to me all relevant and material information. In other words, the system is set up in a way that requires that somebody like me simply trust that the State is complying with Brady and turned over all relevant information to me. Otherwise, if they don't, there is a real possibility that the defense is never the wiser* so it is imperative to a defendant's due process rights that the State comply with Brady.
In the Baldwin case, the fact that several State employees resigned and the judge dismissed the case (the most significant remedy available) suggests to me that this is a circumstance where something truly bad happened and the State definitively violated Brady. This is a horrible outcome because the victim (who doesn't have anything to do with disclosure) or the victim's representative(s) don't get to see the defendant tried, it calls into question the criminal justice system as a whole, and it's a rare situation where law enforcement officers or prosecutors can lose their careers - a risk that is never worth taking.
*About the most I get to do is either get one formal interview with a non-victim witness (victims can decline to talk to me throughout the entire disclosure process) or I can have a defense investigator do his best to try to run down leads, look into motives, talk to maybe some witnesses that the State didn't think to speak with, etc. But I cannot stress how limited these opportunities can be. For example, cops are trained to provide the shortest answers to me in interviews and will oftentimes just try to refer me to their report. So, a defendant's defense may very well lie on the off chance that his attorney happens to ask the right question of the right person. I'll give a recent experience of mine to illustrate this, which also dovetails nicely into a Brady example. I was representing a client charged with drug sales. The sentencing range at trial is 5-15 years prison time and the offer was a stipulated 5 years prison. So, obviously a big deal. I do my due diligence and request to interviewing the arresting officer. The arresting officer is a detective and, per his agency's policy, he was not required to wear an on-person body camera. So, basically, I'm left to rely on essentially his report and his word. Now, in this particular instance, while his report seemed straightforward, I found it very odd that a seasoned detective would be conducting a routine traffic stop for like a stop sign violation. So, due to this fact coupled with no body cam footage, I asked more background questions than I normally would. One of those questions happened to be "was there anybody else in the car?" At this point, the detective refused to answer, which he arguably doesn't have the right to do. I'm looking at the prosecutor, who I knew pretty well, like "wtf??" The prosecutor then shuts down the interview. I then have to file a motion to compel this evidence (as the possible presence of another suspect in the car is certainly material and may be exculpatory) and, only thereafter, the State dismisses the case. If not obvious what occurred here, had I not happened to ask the right question in my interview of the detective, my client would very likely have spent at least the next five years in prison. This isn't how it is supposed to work but, sometimes, like apparently in the Baldwin case, the State is more interested in convicting somebody than they are in following due process.
Pip's Invitation
Footballguy
bagger
Footballguy
Sounds like you just have a major axe to grind with Baldwin. Really reaching for straws here that he should go to jail for something he is not and should not be responsible for as an actor.Alec Baldwin Seemed 'Distracted,' Missed Required Firearm Training Prior to Shooting: Prosecutors
The probable cause filing for Alec Baldwin's criminal charges claimed the actor was 'talking on his cell phone to his family during the training' during an abbreviated training session he did attend on setpeople.com
In the district attorney's office's special investigator Robert Shilling's probable cause filing, he writes that Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming." The filing pointed out that Gutierrez-Reed said in her deposition that Baldwin had "limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded."
Gutierrez-Reed also said, per the documents, that Baldwin did attend a 30-minute training session but appeared "distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."
If he is driving a car on set should he lift the hood and make sure the engine is in running shape in case it breaks and crashes while driving it?
Alex P Keaton
Footballguy
Yeah. He should personally check the brake lines to make sure he can stop on a dime.Sounds like you just have a major axe to grind with Baldwin. Really reaching for straws here that he should go to jail for something he is not and should not be responsible for as an actor.Alec Baldwin Seemed 'Distracted,' Missed Required Firearm Training Prior to Shooting: Prosecutors
The probable cause filing for Alec Baldwin's criminal charges claimed the actor was 'talking on his cell phone to his family during the training' during an abbreviated training session he did attend on set
In the district attorney's office's special investigator Robert Shilling's probable cause filing, he writes that Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming." The filing pointed out that Gutierrez-Reed said in her deposition that Baldwin had "limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded."
Gutierrez-Reed also said, per the documents, that Baldwin did attend a 30-minute training session but appeared "distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."
If he is driving a car on set should he lift the hood and make sure the engine is in running shape in case it breaks and crashes while driving it?
Dinsy Ejotuz
Footballguy
Are these two things true?
1) If the armorer hands you a weapon, as an actor you are not supposed to open it yourself? And...
2) This is the gun they were going to use to shoot the scene in any event? i.e. if Baldwin hadn't shot her when he did he would have shot her a few minutes later while actually shooting the scene?
I thought I saw the first one at some point, but haven't heard it referenced in a long time. And the second one just seems plausible given that the gun was loaded in error.
1) If the armorer hands you a weapon, as an actor you are not supposed to open it yourself? And...
2) This is the gun they were going to use to shoot the scene in any event? i.e. if Baldwin hadn't shot her when he did he would have shot her a few minutes later while actually shooting the scene?
I thought I saw the first one at some point, but haven't heard it referenced in a long time. And the second one just seems plausible given that the gun was loaded in error.
Pip's Invitation
Footballguy
It would be one thing if he was just an actor, but he was also the movie's producer and bears some responsibility for the lax procedures on set. I'm not sure he gets charged if he doesn't also have the producer role. Though with how this all played out, who knows what the state was thinking.Sounds like you just have a major axe to grind with Baldwin. Really reaching for straws here that he should go to jail for something he is not and should not be responsible for as an actor.Alec Baldwin Seemed 'Distracted,' Missed Required Firearm Training Prior to Shooting: Prosecutors
The probable cause filing for Alec Baldwin's criminal charges claimed the actor was 'talking on his cell phone to his family during the training' during an abbreviated training session he did attend on set
In the district attorney's office's special investigator Robert Shilling's probable cause filing, he writes that Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming." The filing pointed out that Gutierrez-Reed said in her deposition that Baldwin had "limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded."
Gutierrez-Reed also said, per the documents, that Baldwin did attend a 30-minute training session but appeared "distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."
If he is driving a car on set should he lift the hood and make sure the engine is in running shape in case it breaks and crashes while driving it?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Regarding #2, I remember when this story first came out that people were saying there is never a scenario where #2 would have happened as during live filming a weapon is never actually pointed at another actor and it's just camera trickery to make it look like they are. I find that incredibly dubious as I can think of plenty of movie scenes where that would be impossible, including many where an actor is literally touching the other person with the gun (holding it up to their temple, pushing it into their back, etc), but it's what a lot of people (some who say they have industry experience) have claimed.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
I think the theory of liability for Baldwin rested more on his role as the producer, not the actor.Sounds like you just have a major axe to grind with Baldwin. Really reaching for straws here that he should go to jail for something he is not and should not be responsible for as an actor.Alec Baldwin Seemed 'Distracted,' Missed Required Firearm Training Prior to Shooting: Prosecutors
The probable cause filing for Alec Baldwin's criminal charges claimed the actor was 'talking on his cell phone to his family during the training' during an abbreviated training session he did attend on set
In the district attorney's office's special investigator Robert Shilling's probable cause filing, he writes that Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming." The filing pointed out that Gutierrez-Reed said in her deposition that Baldwin had "limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded."
Gutierrez-Reed also said, per the documents, that Baldwin did attend a 30-minute training session but appeared "distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."
If he is driving a car on set should he lift the hood and make sure the engine is in running shape in case it breaks and crashes while driving it?
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
The indictment mentioned his negligent handling of the gun. And none of the other stuff explains who brought live ammo to the set. I doubt Baldwin did. Which makes me wonder if the State did in fact know where it came from.I think the theory of liability for Baldwin rested more on his role as the producer, not the actor.Sounds like you just have a major axe to grind with Baldwin. Really reaching for straws here that he should go to jail for something he is not and should not be responsible for as an actor.Alec Baldwin Seemed 'Distracted,' Missed Required Firearm Training Prior to Shooting: Prosecutors
The probable cause filing for Alec Baldwin's criminal charges claimed the actor was 'talking on his cell phone to his family during the training' during an abbreviated training session he did attend on set
In the district attorney's office's special investigator Robert Shilling's probable cause filing, he writes that Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming." The filing pointed out that Gutierrez-Reed said in her deposition that Baldwin had "limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded."
Gutierrez-Reed also said, per the documents, that Baldwin did attend a 30-minute training session but appeared "distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."
If he is driving a car on set should he lift the hood and make sure the engine is in running shape in case it breaks and crashes while driving it?
Last edited:
Dezbelief
Footballguy
The guns on set were being used for target practice by staff supposedly off set. I have no doubt law enforcement was well aware who was doing the target practice early in their investigation. The defense should have been aware that the guns were being used for target practice. People magazine was aware 3 days after the tragedy.The indictment mentioned his negligent handling of the gun. And none the other stuff explains who brought live ammo to the set. I doubt Baldwin did. Which makes me wonder if the State did in fact know where it came from.I think the theory of liability for Baldwin rested more on his role as the producer, not the actor.Sounds like you just have a major axe to grind with Baldwin. Really reaching for straws here that he should go to jail for something he is not and should not be responsible for as an actor.Alec Baldwin Seemed 'Distracted,' Missed Required Firearm Training Prior to Shooting: Prosecutors
The probable cause filing for Alec Baldwin's criminal charges claimed the actor was 'talking on his cell phone to his family during the training' during an abbreviated training session he did attend on set
In the district attorney's office's special investigator Robert Shilling's probable cause filing, he writes that Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming." The filing pointed out that Gutierrez-Reed said in her deposition that Baldwin had "limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded."
Gutierrez-Reed also said, per the documents, that Baldwin did attend a 30-minute training session but appeared "distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."
If he is driving a car on set should he lift the hood and make sure the engine is in running shape in case it breaks and crashes while driving it?
Alec Baldwin's Gun in Rust Shooting Was Used for Target Practice by Crew Members: Report
The prop gun discharged by Alec Baldwin was reportedly used recreationally prior to the death of Halyna Hutchins on the New Mexico set
Gun in Fatal Rust Shooting Used in Target Practice that Morning
Crew members on "Rust" had used the gun for live-ammunition target practice, or "plinking," and returned the gun to the set, an insider says
www.thewrap.com
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
Doubt Baldwin had anything to do with this.
TennesseeJed
Footballguy
Baldwin was more than just an actor in the film - he may not have had day-to-day control of the set - but like a CEO he may ultimately be liable. Lets see what happens in the civil suit - though I expect an out-of-court settlement within insurance limits.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
I never said he did.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
You seem to be imlying that this goes to why he should do prison time.
Runkle
Footballguy
My only issue is that people seemed quick to absolve Baldwin because "he followed the rules on set" or "it's just how its done on a movie". Workplace customs do not supersede law or liability. Handgun safety is not thrown away because one walks onto a soundstage. "He's an actor, he doesn't know what he's doing" is not an excuse in my mind.
Since the trial was halted, I don't think we'll ever get an answer to a lot of the questions in this case, unfortunately.
Since the trial was halted, I don't think we'll ever get an answer to a lot of the questions in this case, unfortunately.
encaitar
Footballguy
Sir, you just killed someone by hitting them at 100mph with a car.Sounds like you just have a major axe to grind with Baldwin. Really reaching for straws here that he should go to jail for something he is not and should not be responsible for as an actor.Alec Baldwin Seemed 'Distracted,' Missed Required Firearm Training Prior to Shooting: Prosecutors
The probable cause filing for Alec Baldwin's criminal charges claimed the actor was 'talking on his cell phone to his family during the training' during an abbreviated training session he did attend on set
In the district attorney's office's special investigator Robert Shilling's probable cause filing, he writes that Baldwin "was not present for required firearms training prior to the commencement of filming." The filing pointed out that Gutierrez-Reed said in her deposition that Baldwin had "limited training in firearms and how to check his own firearm as to whether it was unloaded or loaded."
Gutierrez-Reed also said, per the documents, that Baldwin did attend a 30-minute training session but appeared "distracted and talking on his cell phone to his family during the training."
If he is driving a car on set should he lift the hood and make sure the engine is in running shape in case it breaks and crashes while driving it?
"The brakes didn't work."
You didn't think to test them before driving directly at someone?
"Someone else was in charge of checking them"
Why were you driving directly at someone?
"That was the way I was directed to do it."
Who was in charge of the set?
"Technically me, but I was following someone else's order at the time."
Has this car's brakes ever failed before?
"Yes, twice in the few days before also on this set."
Why did you continue using the faulty car?
"Trying to keep costs down."
Who provided the car?
"Technically me.(as the producer)"
Yep... pretty similar questions would probably be asked and a lot of people would directly blame Baldwin in that scenario too.
Mrs. Rannous
Footballguy
That was never my argument. I never saw anything that indicated that he knew, or should have known, that someone brought live ammo on set.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
Why are you coming at me like this?
The posters mocking my words is something to be expected on the interwebs and did not raise an eyebrow or a response.
First you call me a liar in lawyer speak and then you put words in my mouth. I do not feel mocked by you. I feel insulted by you.
Dezbelief
Footballguy
If that's what you are fishing for. I have posted evidence more than once. Here is another source.
'Rust' crew describes on-set gun safety issues and misfires days before fatal shooting
Hours before actor Alec Baldwin fatally shot a cinematographer on the New Mexico set of “Rust” with a prop gun a half-dozen camera crew workers walked off the set.
www.detroitnews.com
"Three crew members who were present at the Bonanza Creek Ranch set that day said they were particularly concerned about two accidental prop gun discharges on Saturday."
Baldwin should have been aware there were live rounds on set, more than once live bullets had already been accidentally discharged on set.
"Baldwin’s stunt-double accidentally fired two rounds Saturday after being told that the gun was “cold” – lingo for a weapon that doesn’t have any ammunition, including blanks, two crew members who witnessed the episode told the Los Angeles Times.
“There should have been an investigation into what happened,” said the crew member. “There were no safety meetings. There was no assurance that it wouldn’t happen again. All they wanted to do was rush, rush, rush.”
I am not a lawyer in the biggest city in Texas, I do not know even a fraction of the law that you do. I do not understand how anyone could not consider this negligence by those in charge. Please enlighten me.
Last edited:
