Alec Baldwin Shoots and Kills Cinematographer, Wounds Director

[Texzilla58 4687]

Has anyone answered the question of, "how did live ammunition make it on the set, who brought it and who allowed it to be there?" 
There should be a reasonable expectation in the film industry that live ammunition should never be on or around a movie set. There is no reason to have it, it's not necessary for any filming purposes, and greatly increases the risk of accidents. 

The live ammo issue is different than Baldwin’s shooting issue. Live ammo should not be on set. However there were reports that the crew had an impromptu shooting range they enjoyed at downtime. Producers should not have allowed, and armorer should have been raising hell.

[shadow_operative 15931]

25 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I don't have an axe to grind against Alec Baldwin. He's a pretty good comedic actor and he played the best Jack Ryan. I could really care less about his political views or any of that, and I generally think this incident is more of an indictment against how the industry handles gun safety than an indictment against him barring some information coming out about it that says he was aware of safety concerns on the set and was flippant about them yadda yadda yadda...

But, while admittedly I didn't read the article, the quote you posted reads like satire. The whole situation and people's reactions to it feels like some sort of satirical bizarro world. We have posts from people who grew up around guns saying that they needed to control their guns better, all the while people on the opposite end of the spectrum are insisting that they didn't need to control their guns better and suggesting they did is a slippery slope. @henrygandorf couldn't write a better comedic strip. Except this time it isn't comedy and somebody died.

the gun lovers want to make this out to be a case of a super liberal actor being reckless with his firearms, and are chomping at the bit to hop up on their soap boxes to tell their own super unique story about when grand pappy first took em squirrel huntin' with his old .22 when they were just three years old, and how ever since then they've shown respect for firearms, and blah blah blah blah soap box blah.

and then on the other hand you have people with lifetimes experience in this industry attempting to break through the impenetrable force field that is conservatives hearing something they don't want to hear, but explaining to them, repetitively, and in great detail, that their regular world experience and rules are not the same as those in hollywood, and therefore your incessant blathering about respect for firearms is misguided and out of touch. it's not bizarro world, it's your average everyday shit when a hot button topic like guns gets involved.

[shadow_operative 15931]

poll every single actor who ever held or shot a gun in a movie and ask them these two questions:

1)did you ever, at any moment, believe you were holding a real gun with live ammunition which would be shot from the gun when you pulled the trigger? 100% of them will answer "no".

2)did you ever in fact end up with a real gun in your hand, loaded with live rounds which fired off when you pulled the trigger? 99.999999999% will answer "no."

so where in the fuck do you people get off insisting that Alec Baldwin/any actor should have done more, or should have checked the gun himself? the mere idea that an actor should ever suspect that the gun in their hand is a real gun with live ammunition is insane. it's something that happens 0.00000000000000001% of the time. 

and again, this situation is NOT analogous to handling guns in the everyday real world. you own and operate and are responsible for the safety of your own firearms; that's not the case witch actor's on a movie set. HELLO. that wasn't alec baldwin's gun. he didn't go out one day and decide to buy it, and to master handling it. it's a gun that was handed to him by multiple people whose job it was to ensure that the gun was safe. he's an actor, who was acting. he left he gun safety to the gun safety experts, and they failed him.

[shadow_operative 15931]

oh and by the way, just imagine if he'd shot this lady while "checking to make sure the gun was safe". absolute 100% guarantee that every single gun safety lecturer in this thread who's been crushing bladwin for not checking the gun himself would instead be crushing him for fucking around with a loaded gun when he's not experienced with firearms. you know that's a fact. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4962]

What this all boils down to is you are pissed that folks are insisting that maybe people should be a little safer around something that can easily kill another human being if it isn't handled properly. You are actually arguing for less safety and getting emotional enough that you called people arguing for more safety "retards." You might want to take a step back, take a deep breath, and do a little self evaluation. Because in your current state of mind you embody everything you hate.

[Pam Cummings 9422]

6 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

What this all boils down to is you are pissed that folks are insisting that maybe people should be a little safer around something that can easily kill another human being if it isn't handled properly. You are actually arguing for less safety and getting emotional enough that you called people arguing for more safety "retards." You might want to take a step back, take a deep breath, and do a little self evaluation. Because in your current state of mind you embody everything you hate.

Please explain to me how what you're saying makes sense when what you're doing is asking an actor to point a gun at another human and pull the trigger. How does one safely do that? How is the actor supposed to know what a live round looks like and what a dummy round looks like? And again, if they themselves check the weapon, that is against the rules. So please explain to me how you can tell someome to point a weapon at someone else and then in the same breath tell that person to be careful and be safe with it. They are under the assumption that the weapon has been cleared and is safe. All of you gun safety experts seem to lack any curiosity whatsoever as to how the live round got on to the set. I find that odd.

Edited January 22, 2023 by Pam Cummings

[shadow_operative 15931]

8 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

What this all boils down to is you are pissed that folks are insisting that maybe people should be a little safer around something that can easily kill another human being if it isn't handled properly. 

no, what it comes down to is that i, and many others, are really really sick of all of the soap box preaching and admonishment from people who are seriously out of their element here. people who don't know what they're talking about, but who insist that they do.

automobiles are just one example of "something that can easily kill another human being if it isn't handled properly", and there have been several analogies given (and ignored) explaining that you wouldn't blame an actor/stunt person if he got behind the wheel of a car that wasn't fit to drive and it subsequently malfunctioned and killed someone. you'd blake the person responsible for the safety of the car. do any of the gun nuts even address these posts? nope. cuz they don't want to hear that. that doesn't fit their narrative. so it gets ignored, and we get the same pro gun proselytizing all over again. it's the definition of an exercise in futility.

[shadow_operative 15931]

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

What this all boils down to is you are pissed that folks are insisting that maybe people should be a little safer around something that can easily kill another human being if it isn't handled properly. 

also, since the theme of this thread is just repeating one's self while the other side ignores everything you say, let's do that again: alec baldwin is not a gun expert. that's why they hire gun experts, and task said experts with handling and inspecting all firearms to make sure that they're safe. alec baldwin would have been going against gun safety protocol had he decided to check the weapon himself.

he's not the expert. that's not his job. and if he had accidentally shot someone while "checking the gun himself", you and everyone else looking to crucify him right now would simply be looking to crucify him for fucking with a gun when he doesn't know what he's doing, when there are paid experts on set whose sole job it is to maintain the safety of the gun. you'd be livid that he didn't leave it to the paid professionals, and instead showed a total lack of respect for firearms. total circular logic.

Edited January 22, 2023 by shadow_operative

['stache 21564]

9 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

What this all boils down to is you are pissed that folks are insisting that maybe people should be a little safer around something that can easily kill another human being if it isn't handled properly. You are actually arguing for less safety and getting emotional enough that you called people arguing for more safety "retards." You might want to take a step back, take a deep breath, and do a little self evaluation. Because in your current state of mind you embody everything you hate.

What he’s saying is the the “proper handling” i.e. safety protocols should have already happened before it reaches the hands of the actor whose job it often is to point and shoot at others. The actor is prohibited from looking at it or tinkering with it because the work of those whose jobs it is to make it safe could be undone by an actor who’s not a full time armorist. I’ve read a few things that might explain his criminal prosecution, including as a producer if there was a shooting range on set with live rounds, seems like a big no no and a producer could be liable. But I too think it’s dumb to keep repeating the “respect your gun like pappy told me” from the usual crowd. It doesn’t apply here. There is something else behind his prosecution, either facts showing negligence somewhere else along the line, maybe he in fact interfered with the armorists job, or something related to his role as producer. And yes the possible CR motivations are relevant because of his high profile work on SNL that made a huge chunk of the country hate his guts including many people in power.

[Deej 76197]

Or maybe it's just because Baldwin has proven time and time again to be an unlikable asshole?

[Longhornstampede 3173]

How about the fact that he knowingly hired an armorist for his movie set who's only qualification seems to have been that her father was an armorist? Underqualification isn't an excuse when people's lives are at stake. The two people (Baldwin and the armorist) who should have been raising hell about keeping live ammo anywhere near the set, didn't. She is young and may have been intimidated by actors and other people on the set, but that still doesn't excuse Baldwin from not stopping such stupidity. In the end his hiring of her and allowing lax safety practices were probably enough of an indictment to have him charged on those actions alone.

 

FAFO of the corner cutting type...

[HRSchenker 2223]

On 1/21/2023 at 10:25 AM, shadow_operative said:

god, the fucking gun nuts in this thread who just will not shut. the. fuck. up. with all of the repeated shit about, "there's never any excuse, i was taught to respect firearms from a young age", blah blah blah blah blah. this is how i picture all of you:

you just keep on ignoring the fact that you don't have a clue wtf you're talking about, keep ignoring everything that everyone else is telling you, keep ignoring the industry standards which have led to people getting shot on set about 0.000000000000001% of the time that guns are being used in film, and you just go in ahead continuing ti lecture everyone else because after all, you know best. god damn it you people are such a beating. 

I guarantee you there will be a few on that jury who won't accept the industry standard and will convict on the basis you never fire a gun at a target you're not willing to kill. Or maybe I would just be a bad jury member? I can't move past "all guns are always loaded all the time" being taught to me from a young age all the way to today in my 30s. 

[DixonHur 10858]

1 hour ago, Longhornstampede said:

How about the fact that he knowingly hired an armorist for his movie set who's only qualification seems to have been that her father was an armorist? Underqualification isn't an excuse when people's lives are at stake. The two people (Baldwin and the armorist) who should have been raising hell about keeping live ammo anywhere near the set, didn't. She is young and may have been intimidated by actors and other people on the set, but that still doesn't excuse Baldwin from not stopping such stupidity. In the end his hiring of her and allowing lax safety practices were probably enough of an indictment to have him charged on those actions alone.

 

FAFO of the corner cutting type...

The fact that some of you think AB was pouring over resumes for an armorer is all I need to know about your knowledge of the film industry.  

[TwiceHorn 30850]

Gun safety should be a given for an armorer, whether young or old good or bad. 

The value of an armorer to most producers/film people is a) access to period- and situation-correct weapons/reproductions and b) teaching the actors to use them in a realistic fashion.  The "safety" aspect is not what makes an armorer good or bad, although an unsafe armorer is certainly a bad one.

If you are shooting a film that doesn't require that expertise, then you can cheap out and should still expect the on-set weapons to be safe and safely handled.

[Kennythetiger 9283]

28 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

The fact that some of you think AB was pouring over resumes for an armorer is all I need to know about your knowledge of the film industry.  

*poring 

[Longhornstampede 3173]

2 hours ago, Kennythetiger said:

*poring 

Beat me to it

[Dutchrudder 11056]

19 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

The live ammo issue is different than Baldwin’s shooting issue. Live ammo should not be on set. However there were reports that the crew had an impromptu shooting range they enjoyed at downtime. Producers should not have allowed, and armorer should have been raising hell.

Bullshit. Real guns are used all the time on movie sets, but they use caps, blanks or other non-harmful ammo options, sometimes completely empty and CG the gunfire in post.

There is no reason live ammo should be present, around, near or any where close to a movie set, backstage, or wherever they keep the guns locked up between uses. Whoever allowed ammo to be present or didn't forcefully prevent it, procured the ammo and somehow mixed it up with the movie set stuff should be held liable. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the armourer and producer are the two people most responsible for that happening, which is why both are being charged. If that's the case, then fuck them both for being stupid, careless and ignorant. 

 

[shadow_operative 15931]

41 minutes ago, Longhornstampede said:

Beat me to it

*beet 

[henrygandorf 28824]

3 hours ago, Kennythetiger said:

*poring 

 

54 minutes ago, Longhornstampede said:

Beat me to it

looks like i'm not the only english teacher here.

[DixonHur 10858]

I see we've reached the spelling and grammar portion of the thread

[MrBig 5182]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Gun safety should be a given for an armorer, whether young or old good or bad. 

The value of an armorer to most producers/film people is a) access to period- and situation-correct weapons/reproductions and b) teaching the actors to use them in a realistic fashion.  The "safety" aspect is not what makes an armorer good or bad, although an unsafe armorer is certainly a bad one.

If you are shooting a film that doesn't require that expertise, then you can cheap out and should still expect the on-set weapons to be safe and safely handled.

The armorer was 24, the prop master was 24, and the prop master assistant was 19. Is it typical for movies with this level of gun usage to employ young females in these types of jobs? 

[henrygandorf 28824]

6 minutes ago, MrBig said:

The armorer was 24, the prop master was 24, and the prop master assistant was 19. Is it typical for movies with this level of gun usage to employ young females in these types of jobs? 

would need pics of the 19 year old to answer your question.

[RomaVicta 29574]

12 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Bullshit. Real guns are used all the time on movie sets, but they use caps, blanks or other non-harmful ammo options, sometimes completely empty and CG the gunfire in post.

There is no reason live ammo should be present, around, near or any where close to a movie set, backstage, or wherever they keep the guns locked up between uses. Whoever allowed ammo to be present or didn't forcefully prevent it, procured the ammo and somehow mixed it up with the movie set stuff should be held liable. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the armourer and producer are the two people most responsible for that happening, which is why both are being charged. If that's the case, then fuck them both for being stupid, careless and ignorant. 

 

Then all the producers should be charged if you're bringing in an actor-producer. Baldwin's role as a producer had nothing to do with crew choices. I think he's being charged because the gun was actually in his hand. I'm fine with a jury hearing the facts instead of speculating about things they don't know about to make a decision.

I personally doubt that Baldwin is liable, but I don't know exactly what happened. 

You're post is accurate until you go out on the limb. Come back before it snaps. 

[Dutchrudder 11056]

1 hour ago, RomaVicta said:

Then all the producers should be charged if you're bringing in an actor-producer. Baldwin's role as a producer had nothing to do with crew choices. I think he's being charged because the gun was actually in his hand. I'm fine with a jury hearing the facts instead of speculating about things they don't know about to make a decision.

I personally doubt that Baldwin is liable, but I don't know exactly what happened. 

You're post is accurate until you go out on the limb. Come back before it snaps. 

Then who was running the show? Who was responsible for what goes on at the set? Who else is responsible for what is allowed to happen on set? Who had the authority to shut down the makeshift shooting range that was used after-hours by the crew? 

If it's not AB,who owned the company making the movie and is the producer of the film, then who is it? Someone has to be in charge and take some responsibility. He may or may not be liable, but there is likely more than enough evidence to try him for criminal negligence. If he was also aware of or participated at the live fire range, then he's even more careless and negligent for knowing there was live ammo near the set.

 

[RomaVicta 29574]

31 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

Then who was running the show? Who was responsible for what goes on at the set? Who else is responsible for what is allowed to happen on set? Who had the authority to shut down the makeshift shooting range that was used after-hours by the crew? 

If it's not AB,who owned the company making the movie and is the producer of the film, then who is it? Someone has to be in charge and take some responsibility. He may or may not be liable, but there is likely more than enough evidence to try him for criminal negligence. If he was also aware of or participated at the live fire range, then he's even more careless and negligent for knowing there was live ammo near the set.

 

Someone is responsible. The set was a disaster area. I agree.

AB had none of the responsibilities you name in your first paragraph. There seems to be a widely held notion out there that movies are run like the 40s where David O Selznik calls the shots and rules with an iron hand. A day when there was a single producer who acts as you describe.

That's not so now. There are a number of producer credits on a film. They do not share all responsibilities. AB's producer role was undoubtedly related to creative decisions regarding the story. 

The line-producer or unit production manager is the producorial authority about the set. The crew responsibility falls to the first assistant director.

There is no reason for everyone to know that. Some persons, other than you, are choosing to ignore that.

[Richard Kimball 1491]

17 hours ago, Kennythetiger said:

*poring 

Pouring's good.

[Augustus 3061]

 

I figured the reason there were live rounds on the set is because they were having fun shooting shit during down time, but didn't know for sure if that was the case.  If they indeed set up their own nearby shooting range then that's just begging for a totally unnecessary risk.

When you look at all the circumstances that had to come together in exactly the way they did for the Brandon Lee death to happen, you'd think "that's impossible."  But given enough opportunity, just about anything that can happen eventually will, I suppose.

Tragic deal all around and ultimately the only reason stuff like this happens is because humans are careless and error prone.

[txhorns 2405]

6 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

Someone is responsible. The set was a disaster area. I agree.

AB had none of the responsibilities you name in your first paragraph. There seems to be a widely held notion out there that movies are run like the 40s where David O Selznik calls the shots and rules with an iron hand. A day when there was a single producer who acts as you describe.

That's not so now. There are a number of producer credits on a film. They do not share all responsibilities. AB's producer role was undoubtedly related to creative decisions regarding the story. 

The line-producer or unit production manager is the producorial authority about the set. The crew responsibility falls to the first assistant director.

There is no reason for everyone to know that. Some persons, other than you, are choosing to ignore that.

I agree with you that he wasn’t in charge of everything, likely not in the case of hiring, but he was a producer which gave him authority over the set and most people there.  That brings up questions such as did he participate in the after hours shooting range, was he the cause for poor safety standards on the set, did he instruct the armorer or try to cut corners?  All of this could lead to him being negligent in providing a safe work environment for the crew.  None of it do we truly know at this point, maybe the DA does, but it should all come out in a trial.  If he was the cause of the poor safety conditions then he is absolutely liable for the death beyond having just pulled the trigger.  That wouldn’t be surprising since we all know he can be a major asshole.  It’s not absurd for him as a producer and the one holding the gun to be charged.  Let’s see what information turns out to be true when the trial starts.

[Augustus 3061]

So I saw "on twitter" that immediately after shooting the cinematographer and director (or was it assistant?), Baldwin immediately turned and walked out of the church, leaving others to tend to the victims for a half hour or so.

The source may be an atty who's suing (sued?) Baldwin and/or the production, I'm not sure.

Anybody know if this is true? 

I suppose he could have been distraught and realized that others were attending to the victims, to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But at best, that's a potentially bad look.  I also think it was a horrifically bad idea to talk to the press and to go on television to emphatically exonerate himself.  None of that makes anything he did a crime, just makes him look unconcerned with anyone but himself.  I recall years ago a recording of a voicemail he left his daughter made the rounds, and was pretty ugly.  He may just be a jerk.

I am and always have been a huge fan of his work.  Hunt for Red October, The Shadow (I love that movie), The Marrying Man, Malice, and tons of others. The Glen Gary, Glen Ross scene is a classic.  But he just might be a walking douche.  

Edited January 23, 2023 by Augustus

[Scary Stranger 1711]

He’s a tremendous douche.

[RomaVicta 29574]

1 hour ago, txhorns said:

he was a producer which gave him authority over the set and most people there.

Again, no. The set is the domain of the unit production manager (line producer), director, and first assistant director. Baldwin would have been way out of line to mess with anything going on on the set. Similarly, other producers do not direct actors.

The persistent will to believe Baldwin was in charge of or even minutely exercised authority over the production unit is just flat inaccurate.

As I stated above, I think he's charged because the gun went off while in his hand. It has nothing to do with a presumed belief he was responsible for the running of the set as a producer. 

 

[GoPokes83 2236]

So I saw "on twitter" that immediately after shooting the cinematographer and director (or was it assistant?), Baldwin immediately turned and walked out of the church, leaving others to tend to the victims for a half hour or so.
The source may be an atty who's suing (sued?) Baldwin and/or the production, I'm not sure.
Anybody know if this is true? 
I suppose he could have been distraught and realized that others were attending to the victims, to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But at best, that's a potentially bad look.  I also think it was a horrifically bad idea to talk to the press and to go on television to emphatically exonerate himself.  None of that makes anything he did a crime, just makes him look unconcerned with anyone but himself.  I recall years ago a recording of a voicemail he left his daughter made the rounds, and was pretty ugly.  He may just be a jerk.
I am and always have been a huge fan of his work.  Hunt for Red October, The Shadow (I love that movie), The Marrying Man, Malice, and tons of others. The Glen Gary, Glen Ross scene is a classic.  But he just might be a walking douche.  

I’m no fan, but he just blew a chunk of his friends skull off. He was probably in shock and didn’t know what to do.

[Nivek 16684]

15 minutes ago, GoPokes83 said:

I’m no fan, but he just blew a chunk of his friends skull off. He was probably in shock and didn’t know what to do.

No, everyone knows exactly how they would respond in that situation because they played Call of Duty and when the bullets flew, they didn't freeze.   I recall the day Guile threw a punch at me so fast, I had to duck under the sonic boom to survive and barely beat him with a low kick.   It's why I beat wolves and chimps on the regular.  

 

[henrygandorf 28824]

movie sets =/= real life

[Texzilla58 4687]

Bullshit. Real guns are used all the time on movie sets, but they use caps, blanks or other non-harmful ammo options, sometimes completely empty and CG the gunfire in post.
There is no reason live ammo should be present, around, near or any where close to a movie set, backstage, or wherever they keep the guns locked up between uses. Whoever allowed ammo to be present or didn't forcefully prevent it, procured the ammo and somehow mixed it up with the movie set stuff should be held liable. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess the armourer and producer are the two people most responsible for that happening, which is why both are being charged. If that's the case, then fuck them both for being stupid, careless and ignorant. 
 

Why are you calling bullshit on me? We said the same thing about live ammo. I said nothing about real guns. Of course they have real genuine period guns for movies. I know some collectors in NM that get contacted about providing guns for films. They get certificates from the film company stating the use of the weapon in the film and callouts if it’s used by a star. It can add value obviously. And if I recall one of the reports on this incident had some discussions about the ad for local collectors to provide period correct weapons for Rust.

And of course they use various types of blanks but even they must be used properly as they can be dangerous as well.

[DixonHur 10858]

12 hours ago, Dutchrudder said:

Then who was running the show? Who was responsible for what goes on at the set? Who else is responsible for what is allowed to happen on set? Who had the authority to shut down the makeshift shooting range that was used after-hours by the crew? 

If it's not AB,who owned the company making the movie and is the producer of the film, then who is it? Someone has to be in charge and take some responsibility. He may or may not be liable, but there is likely more than enough evidence to try him for criminal negligence. If he was also aware of or participated at the live fire range, then he's even more careless and negligent for knowing there was live ammo near the set.

 

In terms of crew, typically it would be a combination of the Line Producer and the 1st Assistant Director.

Based on my reading of the credits, my best guess would be that Cavalry Media was the primary production company.

Edited January 24, 2023 by DixonHur

[Nivek 16684]

So I saw "on twitter" that immediately after shooting the cinematographer and director (or was it assistant?), Baldwin immediately turned and walked out of the church, leaving others to tend to the victims for a half hour or so.
The source may be an atty who's suing (sued?) Baldwin and/or the production, I'm not sure.
Anybody know if this is true? 
I suppose he could have been distraught and realized that others were attending to the victims, to give him the benefit of the doubt.  But at best, that's a potentially bad look.  I also think it was a horrifically bad idea to talk to the press and to go on television to emphatically exonerate himself.  None of that makes anything he did a crime, just makes him look unconcerned with anyone but himself.  I recall years ago a recording of a voicemail he left his daughter made the rounds, and was pretty ugly.  He may just be a jerk.
I am and always have been a huge fan of his work.  Hunt for Red October, The Shadow (I love that movie), The Marrying Man, Malice, and tons of others. The Glen Gary, Glen Ross scene is a classic.  But he just might be a walking douche.  

Thank you, Simone.

[Augustus 3061]

13 hours ago, GoPokes83 said:

I’m no fan, but he just blew a chunk of his friends skull off. He was probably in shock and didn’t know what to do.

Yeah that's why I said, "He may have been distraught."

Can't imagine what one would experience in that situation, but I can guess it's a blow to the senses.

[Deej 76197]

15 hours ago, GoPokes83 said:

I’m no fan, but he just blew a chunk of his friends skull off. He was probably in shock and didn’t know what to do.

He didn't go all Lee Harvey Oswald on her. He shot her in the chest. 

[Texzilla58 4687]

Yeah that's why I said, "He may have been distraught."
Can't imagine what one would experience in that situation, but I can guess it's a blow to the senses.

Most folks would try to help their victims in this case. He left it for others to deal with.

[Augustus 3061]

1 minute ago, Texzilla58 said:

Most folks would try to help their victims in this case. He left it for others to deal with.

You'd think, but people who are in shock (just being hypothetical and giving him benefit of the doubt) can't control what they're doing.  Who knows what he was experiencing.

[Foosters 17638]

To all of you criminal law experts on this thread, can you point to some examples of bosses and executives being charged with involuntary manslaughter for the careless actions of their employees based on a theory of negligence in the hiring of that employee?

Because to me, it sounds like a lot of you are using concepts that exist within civil liability and trying to shoehorn them into criminal law.

[hobbes2702 12533]

18 hours ago, txhorns said:

I agree with you that he wasn’t in charge of everything, likely not in the case of hiring, but he was a producer which gave him authority over the set and most people there.  That brings up questions such as did he participate in the after hours shooting range, was he the cause for poor safety standards on the set, did he instruct the armorer or try to cut corners?  All of this could lead to him being negligent in providing a safe work environment for the crew.  None of it do we truly know at this point, maybe the DA does, but it should all come out in a trial.  If he was the cause of the poor safety conditions then he is absolutely liable for the death beyond having just pulled the trigger.  That wouldn’t be surprising since we all know he can be a major asshole.  It’s not absurd for him as a producer and the one holding the gun to be charged.  Let’s see what information turns out to be true when the trial starts.

I don’t think you know anything about who’s in charge on movie or tv sets based on your posting.

[hobbes2702 12533]

28 minutes ago, Texzilla58 said:

Most folks would try to help their victims in this case. He left it for others to deal with.

Very scientific research here

[Augustus 3061]

It's just as likely, in my opinion, that Baldwin's a narcissist and his immediate reaction was "oh shit how's this going to impact me, I need to walk away and think about this."

But there's no way to know.  If I accidentally blew somebody's head off I'd probably be pretty irrational for a bit.

[Nivek 16684]

1 hour ago, Augustus said:

It's just as likely, in my opinion, that Baldwin's a narcissist and his immediate reaction was "oh shit how's this going to impact me, I need to walk away and think about this."

But there's no way to know.  If I accidentally blew somebody's head off I'd probably be pretty irrational for a bit.

Narcissism is a disorder.   Too many people throw it around as an insult or a stand-in for arrogance/egotistical.    If you ever came across a real narcissist you would know what it is and what it isn't, and how charming some of them can be.  

[Augustus 3061]

2 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Narcissism is a disorder.   Too many people throw it around as an insult or a stand-in for arrogance/egotistical.    If you ever came across a real narcissist you would know what it is and what it isn't, and how charming some of them can be.  

In my profession I've worked with numerous NPD patients/family members.

You're right it's thrown around a lot, but calling someone a narcissist is not the same as alleging NPD.  

I don't think being charming is at issue here, but Baldwin is clearly talented in that direction when he wants to be.

[Pam Cummings 9422]

1 hour ago, Augustus said:

It's just as likely, in my opinion, that Baldwin's a narcissist and his immediate reaction was "oh shit how's this going to impact me, I need to walk away and think about this."

But there's no way to know.  If I accidentally blew somebody's head off I'd probably be pretty irrational for a bit.

One thing he definitely should not have done is try to help the victim. He would just be in the way.

 

Hard to know what goes through a person's mind in that situation.

[henrygandorf 28824]

8 hours ago, Texzilla58 said:

Most folks would try to help their victims in this case. He left it for others to deal with.

this type of response makes me wonder if this "message board poster" has any idea what kind of grades one must receive in college to be accepted at a top medical school, if you have the vaguest clue on how talented one must be to lead a surgical team. 

[TwiceHorn 30850]

On 1/23/2023 at 5:56 PM, RomaVicta said:

As I stated above, I think he's charged because the gun went off while in his hand. It has nothing to do with a presumed belief he was responsible for the running of the set as a producer. 

 

I think you are absolutely correct here and that his being some form of "producer" doesn't legally make him responsible for negligent acts on set as in the case of an employer being responsible for an employee, a principal for its agent, etc.

But, I think you can be relatively certain that at any trial, his title of "producer" will be used against him, or attempted, to show that he had some authority or responsibility to call a halt to obviously negligent operation of the set, along with a bunch of other factoids, like how many times he's been around guns on the set, seen impromptu shooting ranges or plinking sessions going on with props and live ammo, etc.