Alec Baldwin killed a woman on set with prop gun (2 Viewers)

[Zow]

Alec Baldwin rejects allegations of non-compliance with shooting probe

Police have been attempting to get hold of the actor's phone, which officers hope can aid their investigation.

But despite getting a search warrant more than three weeks ago, officials have been unable to obtain the device.

Mr Baldwin says specifying exactly what is needed from the phone takes time.

Hmmm

This may actually be true based on the search warrant itself and the limitations contained therein,* as well as the make and model of the phone (e.g. Apple phones are actually very difficult to extract data from).


*I have not read a copy of the search warrant.

 

[ghostguy123]

Someone has to take the fall for this. I am unsure who, but there is zero reason why this should even be a possibility.

By take the fall,hopefully you mean be held responsible.
Certainly some people should bear some responsibility.
However, manslaughter charges and prison??? Lol, no

 

[ghostguy123]

Why are they using real guns again??

This is a great question. With today's CGI he could be holding a rubber chicken and the editors could make it look more authentic than if he were holding and shooting a real gun.

It's more costly obviously, which is likely why.
At this point you gotta figure they would make realistic looking/sounding fake guns for these movies/shows

 

[Zow]

if you get handed a potential lethal gun (not a complete prop) you should check it yourself and not rely on anyone else.

How exactly is he supposed to check it? Does he know the difference between prop gun and real gun? Blanks and live rounds?

gun is real. he would have to know the difference between blanks and real rounds. not likely. DA charged him to save face. the armorer on the other other hand, should possibly be charged with a higher crime.

I don't see a basis for the bold unless you're trying to say that the armorer actually intended for the victim to be shot.

I also don't see a basis for the claim that the DA "charged him to save face." While I am not a licensed attorney in NM, my understanding of the facts (and I watched the video) it does appears reasonable under NM that there is probable cause for involuntary manslaughter. While the state would still have discretion to decide whether to bring the charges, I don't see anything inherently unethical or that they're "trying to save face" with their decision.

 

[Zow]

While I'm generally not a fan of prosecutors giving interviews, I reviewed the posted interview and the prosecutor does a pretty nice job of neutrally laying out her (i.e. the state's) analysis and decision to charge as well as the applicable law. If you haven't watched the video I encourage you to do so.

 

[Zow]

Also not sure the driving a car with a known defect is a good analogy. After all, the main part of that is the KNOWN part.
Unless Baldwin knew there was a live round, it's not even analogous.

Baldwin knew the weapons on set were being used for plinking at cans with live rounds a short drive from the church.

Doesn't really matter. The prosecutor said that it's the actor's job to make sure the weapon is safe, which it absolutely is not. If she tries that one going to trial, she will lose bigly. Why does she think there are people assigned to this job?

Exactly. If they prosecute in that, actors could pretty easily be set up for murder.
That said, using real guns in a movie is dumb

Not without proof that the actor intended to cause the killing.

 

[Zow]

One thing I'm wondering about is that the article I came across said Baldwin was being charged with 2 counts of manslaughter. I thought the other person struck by the round Baldwin fired survived.

I think the DA discusses this in the video I posted. Both counts relate to the one death. They piggyback on each other somehow, and he would only be sentenced for one count.

This is correct. She does an okay job trying to explain it (it is somewhat complicated), but the short version is that there are two separate legal theories. The practical outcome here is that the state has the benefit of essentially making two arguments in the hopes that the jury is firmly convinced of just one. If they're convinced of both, great, but as the DA correctly points out a person cannot be sentenced twice for the same act with one victim so if the jury is firmly convinced of both theories that really doesn't matter.

I'll use an example from my own state to explain. Under Arizona law, both felony murder (where somebody is committing a felony and a death foreseeably results from that act even if the defendant didn't actually intend for the person to die) and premeditated murder (intentional, planned killing) are Class 1 Felonies and are sentenced almost exactly the same (ignore the nuance for this exercise). So, in a trial, the state will advance both theories and the defendant may be successful in defending one but not the other - resulting in a Class 1 Felony conviction regardless and a "bad outcome." For example, a jury may not be firmly convinced* that the defendant intending to kill and acted with premeditation, but the jury may be firmly convinced that the defendant intended to commit robbery (or aggravated assault or burglary or felony strangulation or whatever) and that the death resulted from that felony and the practical result is the same. If the defendant is convicted of both theories, the judge just sentences under one of them.


*Under Arizona law "firmly convinced" is the way that "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" is explained to a jury.

 

[Zow]

Why are they using real guns again??

Honestly, from both a legal and human perspective, and as somebody with little to no gun training and/or gun experience, I am surprised to learn that they still use real guns on a movie sets. If I were an actor I would likely decline to use a real gun unless doing so was cost-prohibitive (i.e. I'd lose a 10 million dollar gig or whatever). Using real guns just seems so ripe for a situation such as this one.

 

[ghostguy123]

Also not sure the driving a car with a known defect is a good analogy. After all, the main part of that is the KNOWN part.
Unless Baldwin knew there was a live round, it's not even analogous.

Baldwin knew the weapons on set were being used for plinking at cans with live rounds a short drive from the church.

Doesn't really matter. The prosecutor said that it's the actor's job to make sure the weapon is safe, which it absolutely is not. If she tries that one going to trial, she will lose bigly. Why does she think there are people assigned to this job?

Exactly. If they prosecute in that, actors could pretty easily be set up for murder.
That said, using real guns in a movie is dumb

Not without proof that the actor intended to cause the killing.

Did Baldwin intend to kill someone??
I'm not sure you got what I was saying.

 

[ghostguy123]

Why are they using real guns again??

Honestly, from both a legal and human perspective, and as somebody with little to no gun training and/or gun experience, I am surprised to learn that they still use real guns on a movie sets. If I were an actor I would likely decline to use a real gun unless doing so was cost-prohibitive (i.e. I'd lose a 10 million dollar gig or whatever). Using real guns just seems so ripe for a situation such as this one.

But then the actor will have to inspect the gun before using it on set or face prison time, lol. "I thought it was a fake gun, oopsie".
In general, I am not a fan of people going to prison because of a screw up at work, unless they clearly meant to do it. I suppose that's the difference between an accident and a crime.
Example, a nurse giving a wrong med to a patient and killing them. Lose license, sure. Prison???? A forklift drive who forgets to look behind him and backs up into someone. Lose job, sure. Prison??
Now, suing a person/company for damages is entirely different. Sue the hospital who employed the nurse, sure. Sue the company who hired the forklift driver, sure.

 

[DocHolliday]

In the interview linked above, the DA said she had spoken to many actors, some "A-list" and some not, who do check their weapons before use. I think that standard should reasonably apply to ANYONE operating a weapon, regardless of who they work for or the reason they are using it.

This is just unrealistic. I'm guessing you must have some idea of just how many different firearms there are out there. Unless one is specifically trained in a wide variety of weapon types, one is unlikely to know how to check all of them. There's always someone who opens the chamber, looks down the empty barrel, and thereby chambers a round.

Live ammo should never be on set. Someone didn't do their job, but it wasn't the actors.

Baldwin as producer ignored industry standards to cut costs, several actions/inactions on his part led to this tragedy.

The fact that Baldwin was producer of the film and not just an actor in the film likely pushes safety responsibly onto him.

He was one of six credited producers on the film yet none of the others were charged.

He was the big man on campus calling the shots.

Someone has to have ultimate responsibility for the safety of the actors. I can’t imagine Baldwin is convicted of any serious crime but someone made a fatal mistake.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

if you get handed a potential lethal gun (not a complete prop) you should check it yourself and not rely on anyone else.

How exactly is he supposed to check it? Does he know the difference between prop gun and real gun? Blanks and live rounds?

gun is real. he would have to know the difference between blanks and real rounds. not likely. DA charged him to save face. the armorer on the other other hand, should possibly be charged with a higher crime.

I don't see a basis for the bold unless you're trying to say that the armorer actually intended for the victim to be shot.

I also don't see a basis for the claim that the DA "charged him to save face." While I am not a licensed attorney in NM, my understanding of the facts (and I watched the video) it does appears reasonable under NM that there is probable cause for involuntary manslaughter. While the state would still have discretion to decide whether to bring the charges, I don't see anything inherently unethical or that they're "trying to save face" with their decision.

I understand that technically they can charge him. I don’t see them winning the case at all.

as for the armorer, I get it there may not be a bigger legal charge she can face. But imho, she’s the one responsible and should go to jail for the death of that woman.

and take it to the lawyer thread guy.

 

[coyote5]

if you get handed a potential lethal gun (not a complete prop) you should check it yourself and not rely on anyone else.

Not if you are acting in a movie and there are people hired and trained to do that for you.

Mentalities like this are why people get hurt with guns.

The worst part is, people who think like this are usually the "guns are dangerous we should ban them" set

Not saying joba in particular is anti-gun... unaware of his stance,

I own 3 guns and am very big on gun safety. But this still seems crazy to me, although I admittedly have not been following this story closely. How far do we take this with actors and movie props?

If an actor drives a car for a movie and it has a blowout that results in a crash that kills someone, is he responsible for not checking the tire pressure first? If an actor gets a ray-gun in a sci-fi flick, is he responsible for making sure it doesn't actually shoot death lasers first?

I doubt most actors are trained in gun safety. Isn't that why they literally hire someone whose entire job is to take care of that part of it?

As a gun owner then you know the 4 cardinal rules of gun safety, right?

Tell me something. If someone hands you a gun and tells you it's safe and clear, what's the first thing you do when you take the weapon? YOU CHECK THE WEAPON YOURSELF. Full stop. There are no exceptions to gun safety. Sorry, but any other argument regarding that is ********. I don't care what your occupation is, doesn't matter. You follow the 4 cardinal rules. The car and ray-gun are straw man arguments.

No offense, but I don't know how someone can say they are very big on gun safety in one sentence and then suggest that someone is exempted from the very rules created for gun safety.

 

[Psychopav]

if you get handed a potential lethal gun (not a complete prop) you should check it yourself and not rely on anyone else.

Not if you are acting in a movie and there are people hired and trained to do that for you.

Mentalities like this are why people get hurt with guns.

The worst part is, people who think like this are usually the "guns are dangerous we should ban them" set

Not saying joba in particular is anti-gun... unaware of his stance,

I own 3 guns and am very big on gun safety. But this still seems crazy to me, although I admittedly have not been following this story closely. How far do we take this with actors and movie props?

If an actor drives a car for a movie and it has a blowout that results in a crash that kills someone, is he responsible for not checking the tire pressure first? If an actor gets a ray-gun in a sci-fi flick, is he responsible for making sure it doesn't actually shoot death lasers first?

I doubt most actors are trained in gun safety. Isn't that why they literally hire someone whose entire job is to take care of that part of it?

As a gun owner then you know the 4 cardinal rules of gun safety, right?

Tell me something. If someone hands you a gun and tells you it's safe and clear, what's the first thing you do when you take the weapon? YOU CHECK THE WEAPON YOURSELF. Full stop. There are no exceptions to gun safety. Sorry, but any other argument regarding that is ********. I don't care what your occupation is, doesn't matter. You follow the 4 cardinal rules. The car and ray-gun are straw man arguments.

No offense, but I don't know how someone can say they are very big on gun safety in one sentence and then suggest that someone is exempted from the very rules created for gun safety.

Plus the actors union rules above even drive the point home: even if you know nothing else about gun safety, avoiding pointing the gun directly at someone prevents this tragedy from occurring. Any other mitigating circumstance notwithstanding (including any culpability of producer Alec Baldwin), common sense, standard gun safety procedures, and the industry rules all place some culpability firmly at the feet of the actor Alec Baldwin.

 

[ghostguy123]

A lot of "what you should do" stuff being discussed here regarding gun safety.
Of course people screwed up and safety protocols were violated. The victims/families sure have one heck of a case should they pursue it.
However, I have no idea how people think prison time is in order here.

 

[Zow]

Why are they using real guns again??

Honestly, from both a legal and human perspective, and as somebody with little to no gun training and/or gun experience, I am surprised to learn that they still use real guns on a movie sets. If I were an actor I would likely decline to use a real gun unless doing so was cost-prohibitive (i.e. I'd lose a 10 million dollar gig or whatever). Using real guns just seems so ripe for a situation such as this one.

But then the actor will have to inspect the gun before using it on set or face prison time, lol. "I thought it was a fake gun, oopsie".
In general, I am not a fan of people going to prison because of a screw up at work, unless they clearly meant to do it. I suppose that's the difference between an accident and a crime.
Example, a nurse giving a wrong med to a patient and killing them. Lose license, sure. Prison???? A forklift drive who forgets to look behind him and backs up into someone. Lose job, sure. Prison??
Now, suing a person/company for damages is entirely different. Sue the hospital who employed the nurse, sure. Sue the company who hired the forklift driver, sure.

1. There is no guarantee or even an initial indication that Baldwin will go to prison for this. Even in my state, which has harsher sentencing ranges for involuntary manslaughter, probation (perhaps with some moderate amount of jail time) would still very much be in play. Further, if I were representing Baldwin (and this happened in my state), I would somewhat expect a plea offer to probation (though probably with a felony conviction).
2. I agree that this is very likely a strong civil lawsuit where the burden of proof is significantly less and the plaintiff would only have to prove negligence.

 

[Zow]

if you get handed a potential lethal gun (not a complete prop) you should check it yourself and not rely on anyone else.

How exactly is he supposed to check it? Does he know the difference between prop gun and real gun? Blanks and live rounds?

gun is real. he would have to know the difference between blanks and real rounds. not likely. DA charged him to save face. the armorer on the other other hand, should possibly be charged with a higher crime.

I don't see a basis for the bold unless you're trying to say that the armorer actually intended for the victim to be shot.

I also don't see a basis for the claim that the DA "charged him to save face." While I am not a licensed attorney in NM, my understanding of the facts (and I watched the video) it does appears reasonable under NM that there is probable cause for involuntary manslaughter. While the state would still have discretion to decide whether to bring the charges, I don't see anything inherently unethical or that they're "trying to save face" with their decision.

I understand that technically they can charge him. I don’t see them winning the case at all.

as for the armorer, I get it there may not be a bigger legal charge she can face. But imho, she’s the one responsible and should go to jail for the death of that woman.

and take it to the lawyer thread guy.

I'm sorry for providing expert analysis on this situation for you guys! Please go back to talking nonsense...

 

[Zow]

Also not sure the driving a car with a known defect is a good analogy. After all, the main part of that is the KNOWN part.
Unless Baldwin knew there was a live round, it's not even analogous.

Baldwin knew the weapons on set were being used for plinking at cans with live rounds a short drive from the church.

Doesn't really matter. The prosecutor said that it's the actor's job to make sure the weapon is safe, which it absolutely is not. If she tries that one going to trial, she will lose bigly. Why does she think there are people assigned to this job?

Exactly. If they prosecute in that, actors could pretty easily be set up for murder.
That said, using real guns in a movie is dumb

Not without proof that the actor intended to cause the killing.

Did Baldwin intend to kill someone??
I'm not sure you got what I was saying.

You said he would be set up for murder. My response was that he wouldn't be charged with murder, even if he was set up, if there is no proof of an intentional act (as murder generally requires a specific intent mental state). He could, in theory, be "set up" for some form of manslaughter.

You may be referring to "homicide" when you say "murder" and, if so, then I understand your point (there is a technical difference between the terms, though, and in this context that difference is distinguishable and important to what you may be trying to say).

 

[belljr]

Also not sure the driving a car with a known defect is a good analogy. After all, the main part of that is the KNOWN part.
Unless Baldwin knew there was a live round, it's not even analogous.

Baldwin knew the weapons on set were being used for plinking at cans with live rounds a short drive from the church.

Doesn't really matter. The prosecutor said that it's the actor's job to make sure the weapon is safe, which it absolutely is not. If she tries that one going to trial, she will lose bigly. Why does she think there are people assigned to this job?

Exactly. If they prosecute in that, actors could pretty easily be set up for murder.
That said, using real guns in a movie is dumb

Not without proof that the actor intended to cause the killing.

Did Baldwin intend to kill someone??
I'm not sure you got what I was saying.

No, thats why its involuntary manslaughter.....

If I accidentally run a stop sign and kill someone in a crash - I can be held for vehicular manslaughter.

I wasn't trying to kill anyone, I didn't purposely run a stop sign

 

[[icon]]

if you get handed a potential lethal gun (not a complete prop) you should check it yourself and not rely on anyone else.

Not if you are acting in a movie and there are people hired and trained to do that for you.

Mentalities like this are why people get hurt with guns.

The worst part is, people who think like this are usually the "guns are dangerous we should ban them" set

Not saying joba in particular is anti-gun... unaware of his stance,

I own 3 guns and am very big on gun safety. But this still seems crazy to me, although I admittedly have not been following this story closely. How far do we take this with actors and movie props?

If an actor drives a car for a movie and it has a blowout that results in a crash that kills someone, is he responsible for not checking the tire pressure first? If an actor gets a ray-gun in a sci-fi flick, is he responsible for making sure it doesn't actually shoot death lasers first?

I doubt most actors are trained in gun safety. Isn't that why they literally hire someone whose entire job is to take care of that part of it?

This is a terrible analogy that makes me think you're not particularly serious about this discussion and that's fine.

Every time anyone hands off a firearm to another person it should be checked to be clear. Every time. Every person. Period.

We're not taking ray guns that don't exist for the purposes of this discussion.

We're not talking pre-checking hundreds failure points before an generally innocuous act of driving.

We're talking about pointing a firearm that will kill at a person and pulling the trigger.

Checking the weapon when taking possession is taught at EVERY level of gun safety. Your failure to understand that despite being a "gun owner" is a little scary, to be honest.

You should probably look into taking another rudimentary gun safety class again, IMO.

This thread is pretty clearly revealing people who have limited to zero firearms knowledge.

 

[[icon]]

I posted this earlier in this thread but I'll repost it as it seems relevant to the charges:

To this point, here is a link to the rules of gun safety from one of the unions for actors:


https://www.actorsequity.org/resources/Producers/safe-and-sanitary/safety-tips-for-use-of-firearms/


The text of the rules:
Safety Tips for Use of Firearms
Use simulated or dummy weapons whenever possible.
Treat all guns as if they are loaded and deadly.
Unless you are actually performing or rehearsing, the property master must secure all firearms.
The property master or armorer should carefully train you in the safe use of any firearm you must handle. Be honest if you have no knowledge about guns. Do not overstate your qualifications.
Follow all instructions given by the qualified instructor.
Never engage in horseplay with any firearms or other weapons. Do not let others handle the gun for any reason.
All loading of firearms must be done by the property master, armorer or experienced persons working under their direct supervision.
Never point a firearm at anyone including yourself. Always cheat the shot by aiming to the right or left of the target character. If asked to point and shoot directly at a living target, consult with the property master or armorer for the prescribed safety procedures.
If you are the intended target of a gunshot, make sure that the person firing at you has followed all these safety procedures.
If you are required to wear exploding blood squibs, make sure there is a bulletproof vest or other solid protection between you and the blast packet.
Use protective shields for all off stage cast within close proximity to any shots fired.
Appropriate ear protection should be offered to the cast members and stage managers.
Check the firearm every time you take possession of it. Before each use, make sure the gun has been test-fired off stage and then ask to test fire it yourself. Watch the prop master check the cylinders and barrel to be sure no foreign object or dummy bullet has become lodged inside.
Blanks are extremely dangerous. Even though they do not fire bullets out of the gun barrel, they still have a powerful blast than can maim or kill.
Never attempt to adjust, modify or repair a firearm yourself. If a weapon jams or malfunctions, corrections shall be made only by a qualified person.
When a scene is completed, the property master shall unload the firearms. All weapons must be cleaned, checked and inventoried after each performance.
Live ammunition may not be brought into the theatre.
If you are in a production where shots are to be fired and there is no qualified property master, go to the nearest phone and call Actors' Equity Association. A union representative will make sure proper procedures are followed.
State and federal safety laws must be honored at all times.
If any of the above safety tips conflict with the instructions given by a qualified instructor, abide by the instructions from the qualified instructor. If you are still not sure, contact your Equity Business Representative.

Thank you.

"I'm handling a deadly weapon and while Gun safety 101 says to do something, my actors handbook says to do something, but I don't think it's important."

Derp. This is how people die. Exhibit A.

 

[[icon]]

A lot of "what you should do" stuff being discussed here regarding gun safety.
Of course people screwed up and safety protocols were violated. The victims/families sure have one heck of a case should they pursue it.
However, I have no idea how people think prison time is in order here.

There were established rules.

Those rules were broken.

Someone died as a result.

Add in a culture of shortcuts and rule breaking leading up to the incident and it's pretty clear there is cause for a trial.

The big questions is:
Who should go to trial?

Well, when the person who pulled the trigger without following safety protocol is also an executive who reportedly contributed to the culture of short cuts....the question answers itself.

Bizarre that some can't connect those dots.

 

[ghostguy123]

A lot of "what you should do" stuff being discussed here regarding gun safety.
Of course people screwed up and safety protocols were violated. The victims/families sure have one heck of a case should they pursue it.
However, I have no idea how people think prison time is in order here.

There were established rules.

Those rules were broken.

Someone died as a result.

Add in a culture of shortcuts and rule breaking leading up to the incident and it's pretty clear there is cause for a trial.

The big questions is:
Who should go to trial?

Well, when the person who pulled the trigger without following safety protocol is also an executive who reportedly contributed to the culture of short cuts....the question answers itself.

Bizarre that some can't connect those dots.

Thanks for the insult. I simply don't think Baldwin deserves jail time.
Not sure what dots you don't think are being connected here.

 

[ghostguy123]

This thread is pretty clearly revealing people who have limited to zero firearms knowledge.

Yeah, like 95% of the country.
We do have more guns than people, so that's encouraging,

 

[ChicoCat]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

if you get handed a potential lethal gun (not a complete prop) you should check it yourself and not rely on anyone else.

Not if you are acting in a movie and there are people hired and trained to do that for you.

Mentalities like this are why people get hurt with guns.

The worst part is, people who think like this are usually the "guns are dangerous we should ban them" set

Not saying joba in particular is anti-gun... unaware of his stance,

I own 3 guns and am very big on gun safety. But this still seems crazy to me, although I admittedly have not been following this story closely. How far do we take this with actors and movie props?

If an actor drives a car for a movie and it has a blowout that results in a crash that kills someone, is he responsible for not checking the tire pressure first? If an actor gets a ray-gun in a sci-fi flick, is he responsible for making sure it doesn't actually shoot death lasers first?

I doubt most actors are trained in gun safety. Isn't that why they literally hire someone whose entire job is to take care of that part of it?

As a gun owner then you know the 4 cardinal rules of gun safety, right?

Tell me something. If someone hands you a gun and tells you it's safe and clear, what's the first thing you do when you take the weapon? YOU CHECK THE WEAPON YOURSELF. Full stop. There are no exceptions to gun safety. Sorry, but any other argument regarding that is ********. I don't care what your occupation is, doesn't matter. You follow the 4 cardinal rules. The car and ray-gun are straw man arguments.

No offense, but I don't know how someone can say they are very big on gun safety in one sentence and then suggest that someone is exempted from the very rules created for gun safety.

Plus the actors union rules above even drive the point home: even if you know nothing else about gun safety, avoiding pointing the gun directly at someone prevents this tragedy from occurring. Any other mitigating circumstance notwithstanding (including any culpability of producer Alec Baldwin), common sense, standard gun safety procedures, and the industry rules all place some culpability firmly at the feet of the actor Alec Baldwin.

In practice guns are pointed at other actors ALL THE TIME in filming. And as much as some people will say "oh they're actually aiming a little to the left and it's an optical illusion" we know there are plenty of cases where even that isn't feasible with camera tricks, as guns are literally held up against people's temple, physically touching their head, in movies all the time.

FWIW wasn't Baldwin actually pointing the gun at a camera, which is what the script instructed (to point the gun directly into the camera)?

 

[ghostguy123]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

 

[ChicoCat]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

I'm not sure. I think there's alot of people who aren't following it who just think it's Baldwin the actor.

 

[ghostguy123]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

I'm not sure. I think there's alot of people who aren't following it who just think it's Baldwin the actor.

Do you think anyone involved here should be convicted of a felony and/or do jail time? Just curious

 

[ChicoCat]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

I'm not sure. I think there's alot of people who aren't following it who just think it's Baldwin the actor.

Do you think anyone involved here should be convicted of a felony and/or do jail time? Just curious

I think Involuntary Manslaughter is probably the right call to charge him with. As to jail time, I think if he were just an random actor who did this; he wouldn't get jail time. The idea that he should "check any gun given to him" is a nice rule....but it doesn't seem to be a law. There's supposed to be professionals on that job site who do that for him. But since he was the Producer as well, if they can prove that it was under his call/watch that all this negligence occurred, I could see him getting some time. Same as the armorer.

 

[ChicoCat]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

I'm not sure. I think there's alot of people who aren't following it who just think it's Baldwin the actor.

Do you think anyone involved here should be convicted of a felony and/or do jail time? Just curious

I think Involuntary Manslaughter is probably the right call to charge him with. As to jail time, I think if he were just an random actor who did this; he wouldn't get jail time. The idea that he should "check any gun given to him" is a nice rule....but it doesn't seem to be a law. There's supposed to be professionals on that job site who do that for him. But since he was the Producer as well, if they can prove that it was under his call/watch that all this negligence occurred, I could see him getting some time. Same as the armorer.

That being said, noone was convicted with Brandon Lee's death. There was negligence there. But I do think it's important that Baldwin was both the person who accidentally killed someone due to negligence not DIRECTLY his fault.....but also the Producer of the project who might have been instrumental in creating an atmosphere where blatant negligence could happen.

 

[ghostguy123]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

I'm not sure. I think there's alot of people who aren't following it who just think it's Baldwin the actor.

Do you think anyone involved here should be convicted of a felony and/or do jail time? Just curious

I think Involuntary Manslaughter is probably the right call to charge him with. As to jail time, I think if he were just an random actor who did this; he wouldn't get jail time. The idea that he should "check any gun given to him" is a nice rule....but it doesn't seem to be a law. There's supposed to be professionals on that job site who do that for him. But since he was the Producer as well, if they can prove that it was under his call/watch that all this negligence occurred, I could see him getting some time. Same as the armorer.

But do YOU think he should see a jail cell?

 

[culdeus]

A lot of "what you should do" stuff being discussed here regarding gun safety.
Of course people screwed up and safety protocols were violated. The victims/families sure have one heck of a case should they pursue it.
However, I have no idea how people think prison time is in order here.

There were established rules.

Those rules were broken.

Someone died as a result.

Add in a culture of shortcuts and rule breaking leading up to the incident and it's pretty clear there is cause for a trial.

The big questions is:
Who should go to trial?

Well, when the person who pulled the trigger without following safety protocol is also an executive who reportedly contributed to the culture of short cuts....the question answers itself.

Bizarre that some can't connect those dots.

There is still the dot of connecting him to the process of maintaining gun safety on the set. If he outsourced that then not all the dots connect. There is a general consensus that movie sets act differently than people at a gun range or on security.

 

[[icon]]

A lot of "what you should do" stuff being discussed here regarding gun safety.
Of course people screwed up and safety protocols were violated. The victims/families sure have one heck of a case should they pursue it.
However, I have no idea how people think prison time is in order here.

There were established rules.

Those rules were broken.

Someone died as a result.

Add in a culture of shortcuts and rule breaking leading up to the incident and it's pretty clear there is cause for a trial.

The big questions is:
Who should go to trial?

Well, when the person who pulled the trigger without following safety protocol is also an executive who reportedly contributed to the culture of short cuts....the question answers itself.

Bizarre that some can't connect those dots.

There is still the dot of connecting him to the process of maintaining gun safety on the set. If he outsourced that then not all the dots connect. There is a general consensus that movie sets act differently than people at a gun range or on security.

It's certainly not a slam dunk of a case but that dot can be connected by the handling handbook cited above, also for hiring a presumably cheap rookie armorer.

Again, not speaking to a locked in outcome necessarily... juries can be finicky and we don't have all the details.

 

[Runkle]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

I'm not sure. I think there's alot of people who aren't following it who just think it's Baldwin the actor.

Do you think anyone involved here should be convicted of a felony and/or do jail time? Just curious

I think Involuntary Manslaughter is probably the right call to charge him with. As to jail time, I think if he were just an random actor who did this; he wouldn't get jail time. The idea that he should "check any gun given to him" is a nice rule....but it doesn't seem to be a law. There's supposed to be professionals on that job site who do that for him. But since he was the Producer as well, if they can prove that it was under his call/watch that all this negligence occurred, I could see him getting some time. Same as the armorer.

But do YOU think he should see a jail cell?

Good question for a jury, which is why he was charged. Let peers who have the info decide.

 

[DA RAIDERS]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

This is not nearly the factor you think it is.

 

[DallasDMac]

Serious question as I have no clue. Do movie blanks look like live ammo? I ask because I have seen movies where you are looking at a revolver from the front and it looks like it has a bullet loaded, not just a pinched off empty cartridge or anything. Is it inherently obvious even if you open a movie set weapon if the cartridge is a blank or not?

 

[culdeus]

Serious question as I have no clue. Do movie blanks look like live ammo? I ask because I have seen movies where you are looking at a revolver from the front and it looks like it has a bullet loaded, not just a pinched off empty cartridge or anything. Is it inherently obvious even if you open a movie set weapon if the cartridge is a blank or not?

Pistol rounds look like live ones more than rifle blanks do.

 

[encaitar]

Serious question as I have no clue. Do movie blanks look like live ammo? I ask because I have seen movies where you are looking at a revolver from the front and it looks like it has a bullet loaded, not just a pinched off empty cartridge or anything. Is it inherently obvious even if you open a movie set weapon if the cartridge is a blank or not?

No. Blanks do not look like live ammo. They have a wad of cotton or paper at the end of them instead of a bullet, but still have enough gunpowder to make a bang.

The movies where you see them loading what looks like a live bullet into the revolver are another type of fake bullet, where there is a bullet in the cartridge, but no gunpowder.

FYI, blanks are NOT safe. The person above who said that actors point guns at cameras all the time is wrong. The actor may point the gun at the camera, but on any safe movie set, there sure as hell isn't anyone behind the camera at the time. Blanks CAN kill people.

 

[[icon]]

A lot of "what you should do" stuff being discussed here regarding gun safety.
Of course people screwed up and safety protocols were violated. The victims/families sure have one heck of a case should they pursue it.
However, I have no idea how people think prison time is in order here.

There were established rules.

Those rules were broken.

Someone died as a result.

Add in a culture of shortcuts and rule breaking leading up to the incident and it's pretty clear there is cause for a trial.

The big questions is:
Who should go to trial?

Well, when the person who pulled the trigger without following safety protocol is also an executive who reportedly contributed to the culture of short cuts....the question answers itself.

Bizarre that some can't connect those dots.

Thanks for the insult. I simply don't think Baldwin deserves jail time.
Not sure what dots you don't think are being connected here.

Where's the insult, GB?

I'm being very direct because the ignorance surrounding gun safety in this thread is frustrating, but there is no insult in my post.

If you understand and admit there was negligence on Baldwin's behalf then my nameless last sentence (which still is not an insult) isn't directed at you.

 

[ChicoCat]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

I'm not sure. I think there's alot of people who aren't following it who just think it's Baldwin the actor.

Do you think anyone involved here should be convicted of a felony and/or do jail time? Just curious

I think Involuntary Manslaughter is probably the right call to charge him with. As to jail time, I think if he were just an random actor who did this; he wouldn't get jail time. The idea that he should "check any gun given to him" is a nice rule....but it doesn't seem to be a law. There's supposed to be professionals on that job site who do that for him. But since he was the Producer as well, if they can prove that it was under his call/watch that all this negligence occurred, I could see him getting some time. Same as the armorer.

But do YOU think he should see a jail cell?

Based on my limited knowledge of the facts and the idea that a man is innocent until proven guilty; I would say No. But...I'm not opposed to him being charged with Involuntary Manslaughter.

 

[ghostguy123]

The problem isn't neccessarily that Alec Baldwin the actor accidentally shot and killed some. It's that Alec Baldwin the Producer accidentally shot and killed someone.

Is anyone saying this isn't a problem?

I'm not sure. I think there's alot of people who aren't following it who just think it's Baldwin the actor.

Do you think anyone involved here should be convicted of a felony and/or do jail time? Just curious

I think Involuntary Manslaughter is probably the right call to charge him with. As to jail time, I think if he were just an random actor who did this; he wouldn't get jail time. The idea that he should "check any gun given to him" is a nice rule....but it doesn't seem to be a law. There's supposed to be professionals on that job site who do that for him. But since he was the Producer as well, if they can prove that it was under his call/watch that all this negligence occurred, I could see him getting some time. Same as the armorer.

But do YOU think he should see a jail cell?

Based on my limited knowledge of the facts and the idea that a man is innocent until proven guilty; I would say No. But...I'm not opposed to him being charged with Involuntary Manslaughter.

I don't really care what they charge him with, as long as he doesn't see a jail cell.
Not sure he really deserves a felony on his record, though not really sure that would affect an actor/producers career.........if he still has any kind of show biz career that is

 

[beer 30]

I don't really care what they charge him with, as long as he doesn't see a jail cell.
Not sure he really deserves a felony on his record, though not really sure that would affect an actor/producers career.........if he still has any kind of show biz career that is

Interesting take

 

[Psychopav]

This thread is pretty clearly revealing people who have limited to zero firearms knowledge.

Yeah, like 95% of the country.
We do have more guns than people, so that's encouraging,

Big red X.

The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between 37 percent and 47 percent. In 2022, about 45 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession.

 

[ghostguy123]

This thread is pretty clearly revealing people who have limited to zero firearms knowledge.

Yeah, like 95% of the country.
We do have more guns than people, so that's encouraging,

Big red X.

The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between 37 percent and 47 percent. In 2022, about 45 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession.

What is a big red X?

 

[Galileo]

This thread is pretty clearly revealing people who have limited to zero firearms knowledge.

Yeah, like 95% of the country.
We do have more guns than people, so that's encouraging,

Big red X.

The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between 37 percent and 47 percent. In 2022, about 45 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession.

What is a big red X?

I probably shouldn't speak for Psycho, but I believe he is simply saying you are wrong...sort of like the red X given on the Family Feud game show. He then cites some gun ownership statistics to refute your 95% claim of people having limited to zero knowledge. Owning a gun, however, does not necessarily mean you are very knowledgeable about them. And, even having the knowledge, does not equate to owners necessarily acting responsibly.

 

[ghostguy123]

This thread is pretty clearly revealing people who have limited to zero firearms knowledge.

Yeah, like 95% of the country.
We do have more guns than people, so that's encouraging,

Big red X.

The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between 37 percent and 47 percent. In 2022, about 45 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession.

What is a big red X?

I probably shouldn't speak for Psycho, but I believe he is simply saying you are wrong...sort of like the red X given on the Family Feud game show. He then cites some gun ownership statistics to refute your 95% claim of people having limited to zero knowledge. Owning a gun, however, does not necessarily mean you are very knowledgeable about them. And, even having the knowledge, does not equate to owners necessarily acting responsibly.

Ill stand by my claim that about 95% of Americans are pretty clueless when it comes to guns.

 

[Psychopav]

This thread is pretty clearly revealing people who have limited to zero firearms knowledge.

Yeah, like 95% of the country.
We do have more guns than people, so that's encouraging,

Big red X.

The share of American households owning at least one firearm has remained relatively steady since 1972, hovering between 37 percent and 47 percent. In 2022, about 45 percent of U.S. households had at least one gun in their possession.

What is a big red X?

I probably shouldn't speak for Psycho, but I believe he is simply saying you are wrong...sort of like the red X given on the Family Feud game show. He then cites some gun ownership statistics to refute your 95% claim of people having limited to zero knowledge. Owning a gun, however, does not necessarily mean you are very knowledgeable about them. And, even having the knowledge, does not equate to owners necessarily acting responsibly.

Ill stand by my claim that about 95% of Americans are pretty clueless when it comes to guns.

Not that it's at all germane to the discussion (the guy who is wielding the gun is the only one who should be knowledgeable in this scenario imo), but the big red X means your point is all sorts of wrong. If at any given time guns are owned in 37 to 47% of the households in America, 95% of the country certainly does not have limited to zero firearms knowledge. Especially when we're talking about gun safety. Has anyone here - anyone at all - never heard "don't ever point a gun at another person, even if you think it's not loaded"? That's literally the "depth of firearms knowledge" required to prevent this situation.

 

[the rover]

There is really no compelling reason for real guns to be used on movie sets at this point. Adding sound and a muzzle flash in post production is cheaper than hiring an armorer and complying with the safety protocols.

 

[Zow]

I don't really care what they charge him with, as long as he doesn't see a jail cell.
Not sure he really deserves a felony on his record, though not really sure that would affect an actor/producers career.........if he still has any kind of show biz career that is

Interesting take

From a legal perspective, I actually don't think his take (as an overall court outcome) is a bad one and I tend to agree with it.

Generally, there are three (3) primary reasons* to criminally prosecute and, potentially, incarcerate a person: 1) retribution (i.e. purely just punish somebody - think eye for an eye); 2) specifically deter the person from committing the crime again (i.e. "scare them straight" or simply make incapable of committing the crime again by imprisoning them, giving them the death penalty, castration, etc.); and 3) generally deter others from doing the same thing (e.g. "I'd love to speed on this highway but my friend got a huge ticket and fine for doing this so I won't!" - in other words, send a message to the general public and make an example of the defendant). While there is no set guidelines or ethical rules that legislators must follow when writing the laws, prosecutors must follow when enforcing the laws, and judges must follow when interpreting and applying the laws, these three premises should and usually do go into the thinking and rationale.

Now, in this situation let's make the following assumptions (which seem safe to make given what we know):
1. Baldwin never intended by any stretch to actually injure must less kill the victim and, instead, was at worst reckless in his action(s);
2. Baldwin is remorseful and genuinely feels badly;
3. Baldwin has no history of similar reckless acts and no prior felonies;
4. This matter will remain in the public eye;
5. The moviemaking community will likely see this outcome.;
6. The victim's family is not clamoring for some super harsh punishment.

Since Baldwin genuinely feels badly and remorseful, and since the law doesn't allow for an "eye for an eye" in this situation, I see little to no retributive value to the victim's value and society in general for incarcerating Baldwin. Additionally, since Baldwin's own guilt and a felony conviction (which has some serious collateral consequences to them including but not limited to a very likely loss of a right to possess a firearm), will likely specifically deter him from engaging in future actions similar to what happened here. Finally, since these types of crimes don't have a criminal/evil aforethought and, instead, the state should be seeking to just make actors in similar situations more careful, a significantly harsh punishment such as a lengthy jail or prison sentence seems unnecessary here to "scare" others from engaging in similar reckless conduct.

Given the above analysis, objectively @ghostguy123 's suggested outcomes makes real rationale sense from a philosophical/academic perspective and the goals of the system criminal justice system can be effectively reached without a term of incarceration.

*A prominent 4th rationale is rehabilitation but that is not entirely embraced across the board and isn't really applicable here.