Can anyone explain further the withheld evidence thing? Specifically what they were withholding, and why doing so would have been beneficial for the prosecution/bad for the defense.
PLEASE stop referring to her as an "investigator". Ms. Poppell is a Crime. Scene. Technician., thank you very much.Can anyone explain further the withheld evidence thing? Specifically what they were withholding, and why doing so would have been beneficial for the prosecution/bad for the defense.
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.
Ok, but how would doing this be beneficial for the prosecution in this case?Can anyone explain further the withheld evidence thing? Specifically what they were withholding, and why doing so would have been beneficial for the prosecution/bad for the defense.
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.
Not from her though. It appears it came from the prop person, who was not tasked with guns.The withheld evidence was that there was live ammo all over the set. If anything it seems to make her look worse.I wonder if the withheld evidence will affect the 18 month sentence that the armorer is currently serving.Charges dismissed WITH prejudice.
Alec Baldwin’s “Rust” shooting trial was dismissed with prejudice Friday, after a judge ruled that prosecutors improperly withheld potential evidence from the defense team.
One of the prosecutors “was aware of the new evidence and yet did not make an effort to disclose it to defense,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said in her ruling. “The state’s woeful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate.”
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.I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.
They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?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.I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.
ghostguy123They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?
Well, obvs.ghostguy123They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?
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.Not from her though. It appears it came from the prop person, who was not tasked with guns.The withheld evidence was that there was live ammo all over the set. If anything it seems to make her look worse.I wonder if the withheld evidence will affect the 18 month sentence that the armorer is currently serving.Charges dismissed WITH prejudice.
Alec Baldwin’s “Rust” shooting trial was dismissed with prejudice Friday, after a judge ruled that prosecutors improperly withheld potential evidence from the defense team.
One of the prosecutors “was aware of the new evidence and yet did not make an effort to disclose it to defense,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said in her ruling. “The state’s woeful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate.”
They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?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.I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.
Ok, but how would doing this be beneficial for the prosecution in thisCan anyone explain further the withheld evidence thing? Specifically what they were withholding, and why doing so would have been beneficial for the prosecution/bad for the defense.
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.
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.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.Not from her though. It appears it came from the prop person, who was not tasked with guns.The withheld evidence was that there was live ammo all over the set. If anything it seems to make her look worse.I wonder if the withheld evidence will affect the 18 month sentence that the armorer is currently serving.Charges dismissed WITH prejudice.
Alec Baldwin’s “Rust” shooting trial was dismissed with prejudice Friday, after a judge ruled that prosecutors improperly withheld potential evidence from the defense team.
One of the prosecutors “was aware of the new evidence and yet did not make an effort to disclose it to defense,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said in her ruling. “The state’s woeful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate.”
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.Ok, but how would doing this be beneficial for the prosecution in this case?Can anyone explain further the withheld evidence thing? Specifically what they were withholding, and why doing so would have been beneficial for the prosecution/bad for the defense.
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.
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.They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?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.I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.
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.
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.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.They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?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.I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.
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.
That post doesn't really match what happened, which is on camera. No live ammo should have been anywhere near that set. Unless Balwin 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.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.They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?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.I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.
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.
Nobody ever replied to the aboveThis 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.Putting all legalities aside, do you want to see Baldwin get jail and/or prison time? If so, why?
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.
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.That post doesn't really match what happened, which is on camera. No live ammo should have been anywhere near that set. Unless Balwin 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.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.They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?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.I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.
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.
Just like OJ! I knew OJ was framed!Can anyone explain further the withheld evidence thing? Specifically what they were withholding, and why doing so would have been beneficial for the prosecution/bad for the defense.
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.
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.They made the choice to drink and drive a weapon of over a ton in weight. What AH thinks that's okay?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.I'm not for imprisoning people for accidents when they weren't doing anything illegal, such as a car accident while drunk.
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.
Ok, but how would doing this be beneficial for the prosecution in thisCan anyone explain further the withheld evidence thing? Specifically what they were withholding, and why doing so would have been beneficial for the prosecution/bad for the defense.
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.
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.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.Not from her though. It appears it came from the prop person, who was not tasked with guns.The withheld evidence was that there was live ammo all over the set. If anything it seems to make her look worse.I wonder if the withheld evidence will affect the 18 month sentence that the armorer is currently serving.Charges dismissed WITH prejudice.
Alec Baldwin’s “Rust” shooting trial was dismissed with prejudice Friday, after a judge ruled that prosecutors improperly withheld potential evidence from the defense team.
One of the prosecutors “was aware of the new evidence and yet did not make an effort to disclose it to defense,” Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer said in her ruling. “The state’s woeful withholding of this information was intentional and deliberate.”
How does this change anything?Also the armorer did not hand the pistol to Baldwin, someone else did.
It doesn’t. It’s another indictment of the armorer’s behavior.How does this change anything?Also the armorer did not hand the pistol to Baldwin, someone else did.
On the behavior of the whole set, it was an unsafe working environment.It doesn’t. It’s another indictment of the armorer’s behavior.How does this change anything?Also the armorer did not hand the pistol to Baldwin, someone else did.
Pretty much so. I just haven't seen any evidence of the other stuff you bring up.On the behavior of the whole set, it was an unsafe working environment.It doesn’t. It’s another indictment of the armorer’s behavior.How does this change anything?Also the armorer did not hand the pistol to Baldwin, someone else did.
The evidence is in this thread. Some links starting around page 5.Pretty much so. I just haven't seen any evidence of the other stuff you bring up.On the behavior of the whole set, it was an unsafe working environment.It doesn’t. It’s another indictment of the armorer’s behavior.How does this change anything?Also the armorer did not hand the pistol to Baldwin, someone else did.
Baldwin likely deserves a major case of crabs. He doesn't deserve prison time.
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.youtu.be
This was incredibly insightful. Given the fallout, that leads me to believe that the misfiling of evidence was deliberate and not just the result of incompetence. I don't know if we ever will, but I would love to learn why the state did what it did.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.
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."
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 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?
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 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?
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.
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 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?
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 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?
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 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?
Doubt Baldwin had anything to do with this.The guns on set were being used for target practice by staff supposedly off set.
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.Doubt Baldwin had anything to do with this.The guns on set were being used for target practice by staff supposedly off set.
I never said he did.Doubt Baldwin had anything to do with this.The guns on set were being used for target practice by staff supposedly off set.
You seem to be imlying that this goes to why he should do prison time.I never said he did.Doubt Baldwin had anything to do with this.The guns on set were being used for target practice by staff supposedly off set.
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 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?
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.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.
Why are you coming at me like this?You seem to be imlying that this goes to why he should do prison time.I never said he did.Doubt Baldwin had anything to do with this.The guns on set were being used for target practice by staff supposedly off set.
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.I just haven't seen any evidence of the other stuff you bring up.
If that's what you are fishing for. I have posted evidence more than once. Here is another source.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.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.