Things Not Going Well for Alec Baldwin

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

It wouldn't disappoint me if Alec wasn't convicted.
I think he is a talented actor.  He can be a loudmouthed asshole and I don't see eye to eye with him politically.  
This situation is horrible and I can't imagine being in his position.  just awful.

Libs are so fucking pwned.

[horn4life 3759]

He fucking punted on Jack Ryan, that enough is a gauge of his over-self worth.  He has a pretty good defense just pointing at the armorer, unless there are communications showing he had concern the the Armorer's competency.  

The fact he hired the armorer is where the water gets muddied.  Of course I am only going on what has been out there in the public.  Baldwin did himself no favors in recording testimony in an interview about the matter.  How the fuck any live ammunition got on the set tends to show a casual nature, that was likely accepted by the producer. That's where he faces the exposure.

For me I would never point a gun at anyone (unless I was going to shoot them). But I am not an actor.  If somebody did want me to point a gun at someone I would be compelled to check to be certain that the gun was not loaded. I don't trust other folks on this.  

It will be interesting to see all the communications behind the scenes that will most certainly come out at trial. 

[hobbes2702 13029]

43 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah but he's also the boss of the production

edit: but even so the da said he's charged both ways because actors should know firearm etiquette as well. also he had to have pulled the trigger. 

I don’t find it particularly reasonable to think that actors should just know the firearm etiquette. Especially when it’s someone’s job to train or manage the firearms.
I get the EP stuff but charging him as the shooter seems strange to me

[Red Five 40845]

14 minutes ago, horn4life said:

The fact he hired the armorer is where the water gets muddied.

Did he?

[hobbes2702 13029]

15 minutes ago, horn4life said:

He fucking punted on Jack Ryan, that enough is a gauge of his over-self worth.  He has a pretty good defense just pointing at the armorer, unless there are communications showing he had concern the the Armorer's competency.  

The fact he hired the armorer is where the water gets muddied.  Of course I am only going on what has been out there in the public.  Baldwin did himself no favors in recording testimony in an interview about the matter.  How the fuck any live ammunition got on the set tends to show a casual nature, that was likely accepted by the producer. That's where he faces the exposure.

For me I would never point a gun at anyone (unless I was going to shoot them). But I am not an actor.  If somebody did want me to point a gun at someone I would be compelled to check to be certain that the gun was not loaded. I don't trust other folks on this.  

It will be interesting to see all the communications behind the scenes that will most certainly come out at trial. 

Your third paragraph is really my big question.

We are from Texas, we all have learned gun safety. Is it legally negligent for him not to know those things?

[Beau Vine 54207]

I was under the impression that "executive producer" was a do-nothing title in Hollywood that usually gets bestowed in an attempt to get someone famous to join a project?

Was I mistaken?  

[hayden_horn 11362]

2 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Your third paragraph is really my big question.

We are from Texas, we all have learned gun safety. Is it legally negligent for him not to know those things?

when using a gun in a manner that could kill someone? yeah, i think it is. especially as an executive producer. but even so, you wouldn't engage a chainsaw (presumably) on a set without making sure the chain wasn't going to dismember a member of the crew, right? or stab someone with a fake knife before checking it to make sure it's not an actual butcher knife? with guns, it's a very different world, and this wasn't just some prop gun. it could shoot live ammo. if i have to take a fucking it security training every year at my workplace, i can imagine an actor using firearms on a set should meet some sort of safety standard as well.

39 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

I was under the impression that "executive producer" was a do-nothing title in Hollywood that usually gets bestowed in an attempt to get someone famous to join a project?

Was I mistaken?  

there are executive producers and there are executive producers. 

then there are guys with the title executive producer who accidentally shoot the fucking cinematographer and kill her. 

[bolverk 29655]

Just curious, have they wrapped up shooting yet?

[seven 1367]

17 minutes ago, bolverk said:

Just curious, have they wrapped up shooting yet?

The shooting was a while ago, I assume it's stopped by now 

[Incredulity 11654]

3 hours ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

Libs are so fucking pwned.

You don’t read well.  Predictable.

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

1 hour ago, Incredulity said:

You don’t read well.  Predictable.

I'm sorry, this isn't the Cloak Room?

[Tuco 5076]

I don’t know the facts of the case other than he’s rich and the case is up to interpretation. Unless he texted someone beforehand saying “watch me scare this bitch,” he ain’t getting convicted.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

For the record, he's being charged in NM, which provides the following:

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice.

A.  Voluntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion.

Whoever commits voluntary manslaughter is guilty of a third degree felony resulting in the death of a human being.

B.  Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to felony, or in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection.

Whoever commits involuntary manslaughter is guilty of a fourth degree felony.

https://nmonesource.com/nmos/nmsa/en/item/4371/index.do#!fragment/zoupio-_Toc121821339/BQCwhgziBcwMYgK4DsDWszIQewE4BUBTADwBdoAvbRABwEtsBaAfX2zgEYAmDgDh4DMAgJwBKADTJspQhACKiQrgCe0AORrxEQmFwIFS1Rq069IAMp5SAIVUAlAKIAZBwDUAggDkAwg-GkwACNoUnZRUSA

The link provides case law annotations that may answer some questions people have.

It would appear that the crux of the case would be whether firing a gun at someone on-set constitutes due caution and circumspection.

Edited January 20, 2023 by TwiceHorn

[chainsaw 9857]

He was told it was a prop gun. The caution and circumspection was outsourcing prop duties to professionals in accordance with the customs and practices of the film industry.

[Texas Flood 1356]

19 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

I was under the impression that "executive producer" was a do-nothing title in Hollywood that usually gets bestowed in an attempt to get someone famous to join a project?

Was I mistaken?  

For film (not tv), Executive Producers are usually the "money," or passive producers who aren't the ground overseeing the set or crew hires (at times they're company partners or executives at the production company), or typically talent/writers who want a larger credit that's negotiated. 

Producers and Line Producers/Unit Production Managers are on-the-ground overseeing the production, hires and budgets.

[HenryJames 66038]

 

[Neonmoon 38129]

I don’t know what evidence they have, but from the outside, if actors are expected to be liable for inspecting every prop handed to them. What else can they be liable for on set? The safety of every stunt? I understand the charge is involuntary manslaughter, which means they have to prove (as shown above) he did not show due caution and circumspection. I just think that’s a huge leap in liability as an actor. 

[sheeeit 129]

On 10/27/2021 at 12:38 PM, sheeeit said:

Really tragic situation.  Obviously AB had no intention to harm anyone and it truly seems like a tragic accident.

I have no opinion on AB as a good or bad person as I do not know him, but a realistic case can and almost certainly will be made that he has some legal responsibility for the shooting and that, it is possible, he has some criminal liability.

Also, it is important to note that my guess is that the things that were going on on the set probably happen on most sets.  Shootings like this are extremely rare so human nature says people will get sloppy with the rules.  However, when a tragedy like this occurs then the set will be held to the standards that are the written rules for safety. 

Some of this will be based on reported actions (never believe any news report more than 50% for accuracy) and will need to be verified and some not.

From a legal liability standpoint, AB's production company, based on reports, was in charge of hiring/firing (including director) and was the on site supervising authority for the film.  If true, AB was the "highest authority" on the set and, as such, is ultimately responsible for the workplace.  If some of the reports are true like 1) people on set using the guns for target practice at lunch, 2) combining the role of the armorer and property master, 3) live ammo being recovered from the scene etc.  There are very specific SAG and industry rules on guns on set including:

1) No "live" ammo is ever supposed to be on a set (this is a biggie)

2) Rubber guns are supposed to be used exclusively in rehearsals (this is a biggie)

3) The armorer and property master are the only people supposed to handle the guns except for the actors (it is reported an assistant director handed the gun to AB- which again probably happens all of the time but it doesn't matter if the rules were broken from a legal standpoint)

4) Actors, by SAG rules, are never to point a gun at anyone, including directors.

5) Actors, per SAG guidelines, are supposed to pull the trigger on any guns handed to them at least 6 times pointed at the ground before using.

6) When filming scenes with real guns, industry rules say plexiglass must be installed to protect directors and others that may possibly be in the line of fire.

From a legal liability standpoint this will be ugly and messy.  The insurers are going to point to clauses in their contracts that say standard industry practices and SAG rules etc must be followed.  I am sure they will try to deny any claims on that basis.  Obviously, AB set up a company to produce the film which, in part, is always done to protect individuals from any personal liability.  However, since AB was on set and actively involved in the actions, both from an oversight position and as the actually person that fired the gun, I think he will be sued personally and will likely have liability.

From a criminal standpoint, if all of the rules that were set in place for gun safety on a set were not followed, then I think AB could be charged with something like involuntary manslaughter.  A pretty strong case could be made that because (again assuming reports are true) standard gun safety rules were not followed on set and that AB was on set and obviously witnessed these rules being ignored then it would be reasonable to expect that some tragedy could occur and then he still accepted the gun and then it killed someone that he is at fault.  

I doubt he does any jail time but I predict he pleads to something.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 3:03 PM, RomaVicta said:

I don't know where you're getting your sense of reality if you've bothered to read anything posted on here by anyone other than fanatics.

Read the affidavit posted more than once above. The notion that a criminal charge will likely be brought against Baldwin is absurd. 

Civil responsibility may very well be determined along the lines you describe. I have no idea how that will go. I don't know how much weight the affidavit recording that Baldwin showed great concern about set safety will have in that determination.

Baldwin has had his bad moments as a person. A virulent group hate him for what they have been told are his politics or that he's not a member of the virulent group. This thread is lengthy because of that group.

This was a horrible accident followed by a band of fuckwads rushing to speculate ahead of any facts so they could get their unfounded digs in at somebody they hate. It's just another day for the hate engine.

I look forward to more hilarious t-shirts from the degenerates who will balley-hoo this while continuing to shit in the overflowing toilet they're making of this country.

 

On 10/27/2021 at 3:15 PM, DDD Dad said:

You know how I know you didn't you pass criminal law in law school?

 

On 10/27/2021 at 6:31 PM, Judge Roybeanbag said:

He’s just positing question, c’mon, man!  There’s no agenda.  

 

On 10/27/2021 at 9:30 PM, RomaVicta said:

TL;DR

Answer to question: no and no

Classic CR.  Went back and read the whole thread.  Roma the schoolmarm was really doing God's work with the negs.  We need him on that wall.

[RomaVicta 29902]

Still too long to read.

[DDD Dad 14325]

25 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

 

 

 

 

Classic CR.  Went back and read the whole thread.  Roma the schoolmarm was really doing God's work with the negs.  We need him on that wall.

[Pasken 1309]

Actors are fucking stupid. They shouldn't be opening up the gun or doing anything with it that they aren't instructed to by trained professionals. 

[Nivek 16923]

I think actors need to inspect the explosive devices to make sure the stuntmen don’t get killed.

[4th and 5 4914]

case dismissed against Baldwin, but not the armorer

[TreatyOak 16311]

Can one of many legendary lawyers on this site explain to me how Baldwin got the charges dropped?

In his police interview, Baldwin fully admits that he didn't actually check the gun because, "he didn't want to offend the armorer." You can watch him say so on YouTube. 

That pretty much seems like an admission of guilt. 

Please help. 

 

[Evil Bill Obrien 3262]

I'm sure the Surly 1% already know this but it must be really nice to be wealthy enough to just lawyer your way out of things...like what looked like a pretty solid manslaughter charge...

[C-Man 27189]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Can one of many legendary lawyers on this site explain to me how Baldwin got the charges dropped?

In his police interview, Baldwin fully admits that he didn't actually check the gun because, "he didn't want to offend the armorer." You can watch him say so on YouTube. 

That pretty much seems like an admission of guilt. 

Please help. 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Evil Bill Obrien said:

I'm sure the Surly 1% already know this but it must be really nice to be wealthy enough to just lawyer your way out of things...like what looked like a pretty solid manslaughter charge...

Pretty sure "checking the gun" falls on the armorer and one of the assistant directors. They're the ones in charge of handing a "clean" gun to the actors on set and announcing it as such. Baldwin's liability comes into play in my mind because he probably hired -- or helped anyway -- the armorer and production staff because he was one of the main producers.

[GhostOfTomJoad 9323]

It was also just reported on NBC that it was confirmed that the trigger had been modified in some fashion which increased the possibility of an accidental firing which was what AB and his legal team had claimed (accidental firing/he didn't pull the trigger).

[Bookman 4638]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Can one of many legendary lawyers on this site explain to me how Baldwin got the charges dropped?

In his police interview, Baldwin fully admits that he didn't actually check the gun because, "he didn't want to offend the armorer." You can watch him say so on YouTube. 

That pretty much seems like an admission of guilt. 

Please help. 

 

It's not a crime to accidentally kill someone.

[TreatyOak 16311]

33 minutes ago, Bookman said:

It's not a crime to accidentally kill someone.

Well, it kinda is, if you do so in a negligent way. We call it manslaughter.

As he admitted in his police interview, that he didn't check the gun so as not to offend the armorer, sure seems like negligence to me. However, I am not a lawyer, so I was hoping a real lawyer could weigh in. 

My guess this is why charges were brought against him in the first place. Aside from the criminal charges, he is currently suing the armorer and she is counter-suing him. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by TreatyOak

[Chad Fuck 17659]

40 minutes ago, Bookman said:

It's not a crime to accidentally kill someone.

It can be.  It depends on if someone was reckless or criminally negligent.  At least that's the rule in Texas, and I'd imagine similar in CA.

So if either of those things can't be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, you walk.

Edited April 20, 2023 by Chad Fuck

[Nivek 16923]

2 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Can one of many legendary lawyers on this site explain to me how Baldwin got the charges dropped?

In his police interview, Baldwin fully admits that he didn't actually check the gun because, "he didn't want to offend the armorer." You can watch him say so on YouTube. 

That pretty much seems like an admission of guilt. 

Please help. 

 

It was discussed earlier in the thread.  Basically, the industry norm is to have experts handle the firearms and clear them.   Some actors (like a Keanu Reeves who is very comfortable around firearms) probably has permission to check them, but most defer to the experts (armorer).  In this case, the armorer fucked up.  

[TheRealRonWeaver? 1258]

LIBS = PWNED

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

1 hour ago, C-Man said:

Pretty sure "checking the gun" falls on the armorer and one of the assistant directors. They're the ones in charge of handing a "clean" gun to the actors on set and announcing it as such. Baldwin's liability comes into play in my mind because he probably hired -- or helped anyway -- the armorer and production staff because he was one of the main producers.

As a main producer he probably would’ve been involved with raising money, choosing a director, hiring a production company, that sort of thing. I assume his responsibilities wouldn’t be so mundane as hiring an armorer or other staffers. I don’t know about this production but it seems like that would be delegated to someone else.

Imagine what a headache it would be if every actor had to have the know-how, the time, and the responsibility to check every gun they were going to use during a shoot. I think it’s ridiculous to assume Baldwin or any other actor should be held responsible if they were misinformed about being handed a gun with live ammo. Who would ever expect such a mistake to even be possible?

I’m not surprised the charges were dropped. I’ve known who he is for a long time and I don’t care what you might think of him personally, I think he takes his work seriously. I also heard reporting that the DA had it in her mind to go after Baldwin right from the start and that charging him was an overreach. That sounds like maybe it was credible reporting.

[TwiceHorn 31438]

Negligence is highly contextual, anyway, and especially so in the case of criminally negligent homicide.

What might be sufficient to sustain a civil verdict for negligence might not be sufficient for criminal negligence.

In this particular case, an armorer was hired specifically to handle gun safety.  In a more normal context, failure to check a firearm before discharging it at someone is pretty negligent, maybe criminally so.  

But in this context, it's more "is it negligent to rely on an armorer and fail to check the chamber?"

[otisdog 365]

38 minutes ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

LIBS = PWNED

Perfect example of 'Ignorance is Bliss'

[otisdog 365]

11 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

 

In this particular case, an armorer was hired specifically to handle gun safety.  In a more normal context, failure to check a firearm before discharging it at someone is pretty negligent, maybe criminally so. 

It was reported earlier that the weapon held live ammo. Failure to check the weapon is negligent, having live ammo on a set is criminal.

[Bookman 4638]

1 hour ago, Chad Fuck said:

It can be.  It depends on if someone was reckless or criminally negligent.  At least that's the rule in Texas, and I'd imagine similar in CA.

So if either of those things can't be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, you walk.

Not to split hairs, but if it gets to the point that it's reckless or criminal negligence, then it's no longer an accident.

[Bookman 4638]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, it kinda is, if you do so in a negligent way. We call it manslaughter.

 

Manslaughter is more than negligence.

[TreatyOak 16311]

On 1/19/2023 at 5:17 PM, Beau Vine said:

I was under the impression that "executive producer" was a do-nothing title in Hollywood that usually gets bestowed in an attempt to get someone famous to join a project?

Was I mistaken?  

Means he raises the funds for the project. 

[TreatyOak 16311]

No one has yet addressed the issue I raised, which is that Baldwin admitted to the police in his very first interrogation that he didn't check the weapon because he didn't want to insult the armorer.

Here are his exact words to the police:
"She (the armorer) said, 'do you want to check?' I didn't want to insult her. I've never had a problem. I'm good."

It sure seems to me that his original admission is grounds for criminal negligence. Later, he amended his story to that the Assistant Director handed him the gun and told him it was safe. 

I believe the local New Mexico justice system felt that they had strong legal grounds to indict him. Aside from the enormous legal resources he no-doubt employed, the state may have felt pressure to not piss off Hollywood, as New Mexico is dependant on the film industry for revenue. 

This short video summarises the exchange well, as well as discusses the danger of talking to the police without a lawyer. However, I've seen the entire interview and that is exactly what he says. 

  

[C-Man 27189]

It can be.  It depends on if someone was reckless or criminally negligent.  At least that's the rule in Texas, and I'd imagine similar in CA.
So if either of those things can't be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, you walk.

Incident occurred in New Mexico

[mchookem 16322]

you can keep saying he was criminally negligent but that doesn't make it true. NM authorities apparently decided otherwise.

and yes, certainly his legal resources and general public pressure played a role. 

 

Edited April 21, 2023 by mchookem

[DDD Dad 14325]

3 hours ago, TheRealRonWeaver? said:

LIBS = PWNED

[atomheartbevo 89628]

5 hours ago, Bookman said:

It's not a crime to accidentally kill someone.

[Hmbre97 6305]

2 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

No one has yet addressed the issue I raised, which is that Baldwin admitted to the police in his very first interrogation that he didn't check the weapon because he didn't want to insult the armorer.

Here are his exact words to the police:
"She (the armorer) said, 'do you want to check?' I didn't want to insult her. I've never had a problem. I'm good."

It sure seems to me that his original admission is grounds for criminal negligence. Later, he amended his story to that the Assistant Director handed him the gun and told him it was safe. 
  

Not sure why you're so hung up on what he said. He could easily show in court that during production of a film, it is not customary for the actor themselves to check and deem a weapon safe and that the responsibility falls on the armorer. Her question and his comment are meaningless in this. Just because she asked if he'd like to check doesn't then transfer liability to him.

It would be like Joe Q. Public taking his car to Discount Tire for repair work, then afterwards gets on the interstate and an improperly torqued wheel goes flying off into a bus full of nuns, killing them in the process. It wouldn't make two shits if the Discount Tire tech asked the customer before he pulled off "hey, you wanna check the torque specs on those lugnuts?". The onus doesn't then fall to the customer just because the trained professional asked if the untrained person would like to verify. That's not their job.

Edited April 21, 2023 by Hmbre97

[RomaVicta 29902]

15 hours ago, C-Man said:

 

Pretty sure "checking the gun" falls on the armorer and one of the assistant directors. They're the ones in charge of handing a "clean" gun to the actors on set and announcing it as such. Baldwin's liability comes into play in my mind because he probably hired -- or helped anyway -- the armorer and production staff because he was one of the main producers.

Yes. We've been through this many times on here. Just go back and read the thread. There is protocol on a movie set for guns. Baldwin isn't responsible for the gun being loaded.

The next person that says, "My daddy always taught me that there's no such thing as an unloaded gun" can go fuck himself.

Edited April 21, 2023 by RomaVicta

[Texas Flood 1356]

2 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Aside from the enormous legal resources he no-doubt employed, the state may have felt pressure to not piss off Hollywood, as New Mexico is dependant on the film industry for revenue. 

Yeah there’s no pressure.

[956 Worldwide 34702]

The better question is why he was charged in the first place. If this had been a nobody actor working on a movie financed by someone you’d never heard of, there likely never would have been charges against the actor. Likely on the armorer and plenty of civil suits.

 

[956 Worldwide 34702]

Also, for the crowd that believes it’s just Hollywood money that got off Baldwin:

The special prosecutor in this case kicked off her big announcement by giving an exclusive interview to Judge Jeanine (who just got fired from Fox because of how full of shit she always is).  

The special prosecutor was then later elected to the legislature, I’ll give you thRee guesses what party. She had to step down due to separation of powers and because  she and the DA talked over email about “mentioning my assistance in this case” because “it might help my campaign LOL.”

https://abcnews.go.com/US/alec-baldwin-claims-special-prosecutor-rust-case-violated/story?id=98076900

I won’t say that Baldwin didn’t have fine lawyers that he paid a lot for. It’s equally clear that this was a bullshit prosecution when local yokels saw the chance to go after a star and make a bunch of hay. 
 

[henrygandorf 29189]

not going another 15 rounds over this. there’s a long thread on the movie board where a bunch of us predicted what would happen, just happened. go check the tower logs. 

sorry for those weirdos that got their hopes up.