Things Not Going Well for Alec Baldwin

[RomaVicta 30610]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Remind me again about your area of expertise in film production. 

I have a graduate degree in filmmaking from the American Film Institute Conservatory in Los Angeles where I then worked at Trimark Studios. I had one screenplay in development with Taylor Hackford and Helen Mirren. I had a screenplay called The Nephew produced where I worked with Pierce Brosnan in his production company's first film.

I'm sure you learned a lot getting coffee for Fincher on your little commercials.

 

[VRHorn 732]

Well, thats why they say you should never ask a question if you don't know the answer.

[TreatyOak 17404]

57 minutes ago, RomaVicta said:

I have a graduate degree in filmmaking from the American Film Institute Conservatory in Los Angeles where I then worked at Trimark Studios. I had one screenplay in development with Taylor Hackford and Helen Mirren. I had a screenplay called The Nephew produced where I worked with Pierce Brosnan in his production company's first film.

I'm sure you learned a lot getting coffee for Fincher on your little commercials.

 

Well, truthfully, you got me there good, and seriously, congrats on your success and I hope your project is a great success! You were the one who started the insult parade, which is not like you.
 

Regardless, I concepted and wrote our commercials, and participated in shooting, editing, color correcting, etc, for international brands that Hollywood directors chose to shoot for our NYC ad agencies for over 3 decades and also worked w big Hollywood talent, some before they got famous and some after. As someone who has worked extensively on shoots, I do think Baldwin is culpable. I know that’s not a popular view here but who here is surprised that the powerful Hollywood player somehow got his charges dropped while the others didn’t?

Just now, VRHorn said:

Well, thats why they say you should never ask a question if you don't know the answer.

Truth

[elfenix 34759]

22 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

 

my cousin studied for the bar with matthew hutchins and knew halyna

/csb

[ultimaton 2985]

23 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

People like @TreatyOak are honestly engaging on this, and they get it. But there’s a big subset who have set up their force-fields on this story, because a Lib did Something Irresponsible with a Gun.  And that’s catnip. 
 

For the gun nut crowd the Sanctity of Gun Safety is part of the mythos of the gun. And all of them act as though their daddy’s brief at the range or before a dove hunt or before getting in the blind entrusted them with Sacred Wisdom that is kept by Responsible Gunowners. As though nearly every Texan of a certain age, even those of us who want better gun control, either didn’t get that brief or we have neglected that commandment. This commandment is up there with Thou Shall Not Use the Word ‘Clip’ in Vain and Thou Shalt Remember that AR Means Armalite. Those who do not keep these commandments (libs) are not worthy to have an opinion on guns. 
 

It would be fascinating to cross reference at the time opinions on whether Cheney should have been criminally charged for shooting his hunting buddy in the face with those who want to see Baldwin in jail. That mofo KNEW his shotgun was loaded and chambered and he violated the Gun Safety Brief. 

[RomaVicta 30610]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, truthfully, you got me there good, and seriously, congrats on your success and I hope your project is a great success! You were the one who started the insult parade, which is not like you.
 

Regardless, I concepted and wrote our commercials, and participated in shooting, editing, color correcting, etc, for international brands that Hollywood directors chose to shoot for our NYC ad agencies for over 3 decades and also worked w big Hollywood talent, some before they got famous and some after. As someone who has worked extensively on shoots, I do think Baldwin is culpable. I know that’s not a popular view here but who here is surprised that the powerful Hollywood player somehow got his charges dropped while the others didn’t?

Truth

Okay, I'll limit my vitriol to this thread.

This did not begin with an insult; it began with you making absolute declarations about the set of this movie while simultaneously showing that you don't understand how a movie film set works or who is responsible for what. You are wrong about Baldwin's role in making decisions about what happens on the set or even hiring anyone on the crew. 

As I stated way above, I and others who have some knowledge of this have explained the processes, protocols, and producer hierarchies many times in this thread. I would not presume to opine with any confidence about the set of a commercial advertisement because I've only been around one once as a crew grunt.

I called you our for dishonesty because your list of declarations were unsupported by anything other than base speculation pretty clearly rooted in political bias.

At the end of that list of errant statements, you state, "you should find better heroes." Another unfounded remark pretty clearly rooted in attitudes found in the right. Maybe you're not of the right, but that shade is clearly part of the insulting suggestion that my opinions are founded in hero worship. 

Outside of this thread, we can start with a clean slate.

 

9 minutes ago, elfenix said:

my cousin studied for the bar with matthew hutchins and knew halyna

/csb

The accident that killed her would have been horrible no matter the type of person who died. She seems to have been particularly well-loved. You're lining up a shot in the situation you love the most and full stop.

[YGIFS 19458]

After I was done laughing the dummy closing the door.  I pictured TreatyOak like the prosecutor in "My Cousin Vinny" after Romavicta/MarissaTomei goes on that rant about her expertise on automobiles and he just slinks away and tells the judge, "Yeah, she'll do just fine..."  

[TwiceHorn 32092]

On 4/20/2023 at 8:06 PM, Bookman said:

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.

Funny thing, one of the seminal works of law and economics is entitled The Cost of Accidents.

There is some notion of something often called an "unavoidable accident," where no party is negligent and thus no fault can be assessed.

And then there's accidents in the sense of no one intended them to happen, but someone could have been negligent and will be adjudged liable.

[TwiceHorn 32092]

Here's a link to the NM homicide statutes, that are somewhat unusual in terms of not defining many homicide offenses.  

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2018/chapter-30/article-2/

There's murder:

A. Murder in the first degree is the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death may be caused:

(1) by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing;

(2) in the commission of or attempt to commit any felony; or

(3) by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind regardless of human life.

Whoever commits murder in the first degree is guilty of a capital felony.

And manslaughter:

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.

And then there's excusable homicide:

Homicide is excusable in the following cases:

A. when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act, by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent; or

B. when committed by accident or misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, if no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

So, Baldwin seems to fall somewhere between involuntary manslaughter (without due caution or care) and excusable homicide (usual and ordinary caution or care).  So, the question then boils down to should he have been entitled to rely on the armorer, hired for that explicit purpose?  And I think the answer to that 99/100 is yes.  And nothing developed to indicate otherwise.

[C-Man 27805]

8 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

I know that’s not a popular view here but who here is surprised that the powerful Hollywood player somehow got his charges dropped while the others didn’t?

You keep saying shit like this and it’s usually dropped in very casually at the very end of your posts. You’ve been advised by people in this thread who have WAY more actual movie experience of why this is just plain wrong. Does Baldwin have good counsel — most assuredly. Is that why he’s had charges dropped? No. Is he a shitty human being? Seems that way but that doesn’t matter in this case.

[Sawbonz 28240]

Seems like thread title change is in order

[Gatorubet 30764]

15 hours ago, RomaVicta said:

I had one screenplay in development with Taylor Hackford and Helen Mirren. 

Always a fan of Helen

Spoiler

Buncha Puritans up in here. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by Gatorubet

[C-Man 27805]

@Gatorubet, maybe spoiler the nudity.

[jimmyjazz 47259]

26 minutes ago, C-Man said:

@Gatorubet, maybe spoiler the nudity.

Agreed.  But add more.

['stache 22145]

On 4/20/2023 at 9:46 PM, 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. 

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. 

  

That quote seems to me to establish the complete opposite of what you seem to think. If the actor is always required to check the gun, why is the armorist even asking him the question? His follow up "I've never had a problem" seems to be "that there's no reason in his mind to second guess her work." If I'm an actor, I sure as fuck am going to trust the armorist, whose fucking full time job is to know gun safety, for fear that I might mess something up.

The part I'll never understand is why the ever living fuck are there live bullets anywhere near a movie set where guns will be used for dramatic purposes? I always thought Baldwin's possible exposure was as a producer. If it was his decision to have a practice range with live bullets on or even near the set, or if he was responsible for the people who let it happen, then yeah, super negligent. But why would it be a crime to pull the trigger of a prop gun that a professional armorist checked? It would be the same in my mind as shooting a pop gun. 

Edited April 23, 2023 by 'stache

[TreatyOak 17404]

On 4/22/2023 at 11:54 AM, RomaVicta said:

Okay, I'll limit my vitriol to this thread.

This did not begin with an insult; it began with you making absolute declarations about the set of this movie while simultaneously showing that you don't understand how a movie film set works or who is responsible for what. You are wrong about Baldwin's role in making decisions about what happens on the set or even hiring anyone on the crew. 

As I stated way above, I and others who have some knowledge of this have explained the processes, protocols, and producer hierarchies many times in this thread. I would not presume to opine with any confidence about the set of a commercial advertisement because I've only been around one once as a crew grunt.

I called you our for dishonesty because your list of declarations were unsupported by anything other than base speculation pretty clearly rooted in political bias.

At the end of that list of errant statements, you state, "you should find better heroes." Another unfounded remark pretty clearly rooted in attitudes found in the right. Maybe you're not of the right, but that shade is clearly part of the insulting suggestion that my opinions are founded in hero worship. 

Outside of this thread, we can start with a clean slate.

 

The accident that killed her would have been horrible no matter the type of person who died. She seems to have been particularly well-loved. You're lining up a shot in the situation you love the most and full stop.

Thanks for this response. I've always like your posts and I'm truly happy for you and your project! Plus, I apologize for my comments if I offended you. 

I still think he is liable for the many reasons I've previously mentioned and I think we are seeing the power that is exhibited in our country by the wealthy. It's the same reason Elizabeth Holmes, who was first uncovered in 2016, has yet to see one day in incarceration, although she may finally get put away this month. As far as dishonesty, all of us truly simply giving our opinions here. 

As far as politics, I am a progressive and my current media channel supports small business, and we go out of our way to support historically underutilized businesses and people.

Thanks for your post.   

[TreatyOak 17404]

On 4/22/2023 at 10:32 PM, 'stache said:

That quote seems to me to establish the complete opposite of what you seem to think. If the actor is always required to check the gun, why is the armorist even asking him the question? His follow up "I've never had a problem" seems to be "that there's no reason in his mind to second guess her work." If I'm an actor, I sure as fuck am going to trust the armorist, whose fucking full time job is to know gun safety, for fear that I might mess something up.

The part I'll never understand is why the ever living fuck are there live bullets anywhere near a movie set where guns will be used for dramatic purposes? I always thought Baldwin's possible exposure was as a producer. If it was his decision to have a practice range with live bullets on or even near the set, or if he was responsible for the people who let it happen, then yeah, super negligent. But why would it be a crime to pull the trigger of a prop gun that a professional armorist checked? It would be the same in my mind as shooting a pop gun. 

Thanks for your post. Good points. As far as the live bullets, they were stupid and hired an idiot who had already been trashed for her performance on her only previous shoot, in which Nicolas Cage stormed off the set, screaming at her for firing a weapon next to the crew! She should have been nowhere near firearms. 

[TreatyOak 17404]

On 4/22/2023 at 7:29 PM, C-Man said:

You keep saying shit like this and it’s usually dropped in very casually at the very end of your posts. You’ve been advised by people in this thread who have WAY more actual movie experience of why this is just plain wrong. Does Baldwin have good counsel — most assuredly. Is that why he’s had charges dropped? No. Is he a shitty human being? Seems that way but that doesn’t matter in this case.

Do you believe that the charges against the other two (AD and armorer) should be dropped or well, or do you think they should still be charged, as they currently are? 

[C-Man 27805]

36 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

Do you believe that the charges against the other two (AD and armorer) should be dropped or well, or do you think they should still be charged, as they currently are? 

I think the armorer is by the most culpable as far as blame goes. At the end of the day, that is/was her main job. I only included the AD because it was said by those in the movie biz that is the operational flowchart on a movie set -- the armorer says a weapon is good to go, hands it to the AD who then passes along a "clean gun" to the actor. From a civil standpoint, which is my realm as a P&C person, I think ANYBODY can get sued. Baldwin has already settled monetarily with the woman's widow/kids.

[C-Man 27805]

53 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

Thanks for this response. I've always like your posts and I'm truly happy for you and your project! Plus, I apologize for my comments if I offended you. 

I still think he is liable for the many reasons I've previously mentioned and I think we are seeing the power that is exhibited in our country by the wealthy. It's the same reason Elizabeth Holmes, who was first uncovered in 2016, has yet to see one day in incarceration, although she may finally get put away this month. As far as dishonesty, all of us truly simply giving our opinions here. 

As far as politics, I am a progressive and my current media channel supports small business, and we go out of our way to support historically underutilized businesses and people.

Thanks for your post.   

Maybe I'm mistaken but I see words like "liable" and I think civil court, not criminal. IMO he was WAY more exposed there. And Baldwin has already paid a sum to the family in advance of getting sued in civil court, which is where he was WAY more vulnerable in my mind. Again, this is coming from a P&C insurance perspective.

[TreatyOak 17404]

40 minutes ago, C-Man said:

I think the armorer is by the most culpable as far as blame goes. At the end of the day, that is/was her main job. I only included the AD because it was said by those in the movie biz that is the operational flowchart on a movie set -- the armorer says a weapon is good to go, hands it to the AD who then passes along a "clean gun" to the actor. From a civil standpoint, which is my realm as a P&C person, I think ANYBODY can get sued. Baldwin has already settled monetarily with the woman's widow/kids.

One interesting aspect of the case is that Mr. Baldwin changed his story regarding the sequence of events:  

In his original police interview, as I previously noted, he says that the armorer handed him the gun and provides the language exchange. 
However, in his TV interview, he amended his version of events to say that the AD handed him the gun and called out that the gun was safe for usage. 

[C-Man 27805]

5 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

One interesting aspect of the case is that Mr. Baldwin changed his story regarding the sequence of events:  

In his original police interview, as I previously noted, he says that the armorer handed him the gun and provides the language exchange. 
However, in his TV interview, he amended his version of events to say that the AD handed him the gun and called out that the gun was safe for usage. 

I don't think this really matters all that much, unless you're the AD, I guess. Doesn't make Alec any less or any more culpable in my mind.

No offense but it seems you have an ultra hard-on for Alec to go down criminally for what was in reality a tragic accident. The armorer is going to pay the biggest price, as she should IMO. Alec has proven to be a POS in real life based on past behavior but I don't think what happened here is ultimately his fault.

[jimmyjazz 47259]

10 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

One interesting aspect of the case is that Mr. Baldwin changed his story regarding the sequence of events:  

In his original police interview, as I previously noted, he says that the armorer handed him the gun and provides the language exchange. 
However, in his TV interview, he amended his version of events to say that the AD handed him the gun and called out that the gun was safe for usage. 

How would that affect his culpability?  It's entirely possible he simply didn't recall the sequence correctly shortly after the accident.  Shock, stress, etc. can cloud one's mind.  Maybe he was set straight by others, or reviewed on-set video, or whatever.  

[TreatyOak 17404]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

How would that affect his culpability?  It's entirely possible he simply didn't recall the sequence correctly shortly after the accident.  Shock, stress, etc. can cloud one's mind.  Maybe he was set straight by others, or reviewed on-set video, or whatever.  

I just note it cause it seems like a pretty important thing to misremember. When he spoke about it in his police interview, he was not aware that the woman had passed away. The interrogators waited 'til the end of the interview to tell him that she had died.   

[C-Man 27805]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

I just note it cause it seems like a pretty important thing to misremember. When he spoke about it in his police interview, he was not aware that the woman had passed away. The interrogators waited 'til the end of the interview to tell him that she had died.   

Again, no offense, but this seems like you're playing the "just asking questions" game here. @jimmyjazz said what I'm thinking very succinctly.

[RomaVicta 30610]

The protocol is for the armorer to give the safe gun to the AD who checks to be sure. That's what I've read related to this case. The AD runs the set. 

I suppose it can't be considered that Baldwin might have been rather shaken up when he spoke to the police. He'd just inadvertently shot two people whom he knows and considers friends. 

I'm sure along with crafting lies that don't really change anything, he put on a performance for the camera soon after the incident.

He almost resembles a human here. Acting!

 

[TreatyOak 17404]

15 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Again, no offense, but this seems like you're playing the "just asking questions" game here. @jimmyjazz said what I'm thinking very succinctly.

Well, it is an interesting fact, at least to me. When people change their story after talking to law enforcement, it's usually not a good sign. (I'm looking at you, Alec Murdaugh)  

Perhaps Baldwin's lawyers thought it would be better if he stated that he had followed proper protocol. Guessing that they probably would have preferred he just STFU, as they usually do.   

[WhatTheBuck 28937]

9 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, it is an interesting fact, at least to me. When people change their story after talking to law enforcement, it's usually not a good sign. (I'm looking at you, Alec Murdaugh)  

Perhaps Baldwin's lawyers thought it would be better if he stated that he had followed proper protocol. Guessing that they probably would have preferred he just STFU, as they usually do.   

You say you don’t have anything against Baldwin personally. Why are you so eager to see him punished?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 5005]

I'm going to wait until I see the movie before judging him.

[Mdhorn 6166]

On 4/22/2023 at 11:33 AM, TreatyOak said:

Well, truthfully, you got me there good, and seriously, congrats on your success and I hope your project is a great success! 

Truth

Respect. 

[TreatyOak 17404]

29 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

You say you don’t have anything against Baldwin personally. Why are you so eager to see him punished?

One of my many vices (along w Surly) are true crime cases that I listen to on YT while I'm working. Chris Watts was a big one, as were the Brian Laundrie, Elizabeth Holmes, SBF and the Alec Baldwin cases. I believe based on the police bodycam footage & interview, and problems on set that came to light, plus the fact that he fired the weapon, he should be charged, as well. True, the armorer is responsible for gun safety, but they overloaded that poor girl who should have never been the armorer in the first place. Now, he's suing her, which looks truly awful. I realize that most everyone here disagrees with me, but hey, this is a discussion group.    

However, if you want to learn about THE craziest saga of them all, I recommend learning about the Sarah Boone interrogation case on YouTube. She is the Florida woman awaiting trial who somehow talked her poor boyfriend into a suitcase and then went to bed, while he suffocated! She's now up to her 6th lawyer     

[TreatyOak 17404]

On 4/22/2023 at 1:27 PM, YGIFS said:

After I was done laughing the dummy closing the door.  I pictured TreatyOak like the prosecutor in "My Cousin Vinny" after Romavicta/MarissaTomei goes on that rant about her expertise on automobiles and he just slinks away and tells the judge, "Yeah, she'll do just fine..."  

Haha. And I love that scene.  

[C-Man 27805]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, it is an interesting fact, at least to me. When people change their story after talking to law enforcement, it's usually not a good sign. (I'm looking at you, Alec Murdaugh)  

Perhaps Baldwin's lawyers thought it would be better if he stated that he had followed proper protocol. Guessing that they probably would have preferred he just STFU, as they usually do.   

The material evidence, whichever version of Alec's story you think is correct, shows that Baldwin was handed a gun that was deemed safe by somebody. He didn't pick it up off the prop table and blindly start pointing and pulling the trigger. If he'd done that, then, yes, he'd be way more at fault. The fact that you keep reading past or just dismissing outright numerous responses telling you basically the same thing over and over again, you still don't get it. Or don't care to get it. This isn't some massive coverup here.

[YGIFS 19458]

Yeah, Lane Smith was a criminally underrated straight-man in dramedy films & TV in the 80s and 90s.  The way he lays on his southern masculinity and then slinks away with "She'll do..." is a great little moment in subtle comedy being that Tomei and Pesci were so over the top (but brilliantly).  That is such an underrated cast and execution.  Texas-Ex Bruce McGill was fantastic as well.  

Anyway, we've all done what you did where you just walk into an inquisitive disaster.  No harm in it, it's good for us all as adults.  About 4 years ago, at a bank board of directors meeting in Chicago, I broke every sense of decorum.  I usually don't say shit until the end of a meeting, if anything at all.  And I asked a couple questions and went on this rant about regulatory safety.  And eventually somebody cut me off and reminded me that the guy I was talking to was in fact not who I thought he was and I had his background 95% dead wrong.  Thankfully, Covid hit and I didn't have to show up in person to another meeting for like 3 years.  

[mchookem 16779]

26 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

One of my many vices (along w Surly) are true crime cases that I listen to on YT while I'm working. Chris Watts was a big one, as were the Brian Laundrie, Elizabeth Holmes, SBF and the Alec Baldwin cases. I believe based on the police bodycam footage & interview, and problems on set that came to light, plus the fact that he fired the weapon, he should be charged, as well. True, the armorer is responsible for gun safety, but they overloaded that poor girl who should have never been the armorer in the first place. Now, he's suing her, which looks truly awful. I realize that most everyone here disagrees with me, but hey, this is a discussion group.    

However, if you want to learn about THE craziest saga of them all, I recommend learning about the Sarah Boone interrogation case on YouTube. She is the Florida woman awaiting trial who somehow talked her poor boyfriend into a suitcase and then went to bed, while he suffocated! She's now up to her 6th lawyer     

dude, instead of refusing to let go of your 'Alec Baldwin is guilty!' position, you need to join up with @Nicole44 and get busy finding the Rainey street serial killer!

[TreatyOak 17404]

13 minutes ago, C-Man said:

The material evidence, whichever version of Alec's story you think is correct, shows that Baldwin was handed a gun that was deemed safe by somebody. He didn't pick it up off the prop table and blindly start pointing and pulling the trigger. If he'd done that, then, yes, he'd be way more at fault. The fact that you keep reading past or just dismissing outright numerous responses telling you basically the same thing over and over again, you still don't get it. Or don't care to get it. This isn't some massive coverup here.

Well, we're both speaking in circles at this point. I understand the argument people are making here and I respect their opinions. I won't bore you with repeating the other reasons, but it's more than being just about the gun, IMHO. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 5005]

On 4/22/2023 at 7:28 PM, TwiceHorn said:

Here's a link to the NM homicide statutes, that are somewhat unusual in terms of not defining many homicide offenses.  

https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/2018/chapter-30/article-2/

There's murder:

A. Murder in the first degree is the killing of one human being by another without lawful justification or excuse, by any of the means with which death may be caused:

(1) by any kind of willful, deliberate and premeditated killing;

(2) in the commission of or attempt to commit any felony; or

(3) by any act greatly dangerous to the lives of others, indicating a depraved mind regardless of human life.

Whoever commits murder in the first degree is guilty of a capital felony.

And manslaughter:

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.

And then there's excusable homicide:

Homicide is excusable in the following cases:

A. when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act, by lawful means, with usual and ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent; or

B. when committed by accident or misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, if no undue advantage is taken, nor any dangerous weapon used and the killing is not done in a cruel or unusual manner.

So, Baldwin seems to fall somewhere between involuntary manslaughter (without due caution or care) and excusable homicide (usual and ordinary caution or care).  So, the question then boils down to should he have been entitled to rely on the armorer, hired for that explicit purpose?  And I think the answer to that 99/100 is yes.  And nothing developed to indicate otherwise.

I'm of the opinionthat dropping the charges was the right thing to do in these circumstances, but after reading several articles on gun safety on movie sets, they could have easily made a pretty good case against Baldwin. 

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Quote

The Hollywood Reporter spoke to veteran Hollywood munitions experts about on-set safety, including Bryan W. Carpenter, an armor and weapons master who has been working in the space for 30 years. The tactical trainer says there are fundamental safety rules you never breach when using guns for film and TV productions, guidelines that also translate to real life.

“Number one, always treat all weapons as if they are loaded — don’t treat them as props,” explains Carpenter, who has worked on such gun-heavy productions as Queen of the South, Power, Jack Reacher: Never Go Back, NCIS: New Orleans and Cloak & Dagger in addition to serving for 11 years as a professional instructor training agencies and stunt performers in how to handle firearms. “Number two, never have your finger on the trigger or pull the trigger until you’re ready to discharge the weapon. Number three, never point the weapon at anything that can be harmed or injured. And number four, always be aware of what’s in front, behind and on all sides of what you’re aiming for.”

Quote

The munitions expert, Carpenter, who was not part of the Rust production, says pointing a weapon directly at the camera or at individuals is something one should never do. “You never aim a weapon directly at anyone, period.”

“If you need to point a weapon at the camera, the area must be locked off so that there is no one behind it. You never fire at or near the camera,” he adds. “Sometimes the shot may require it, in which case, the entire area must be cleared for safety precautions.”

From CNN:

Quote

It’s also standard protocol for a firearm to be empty for the majority of takes. It is only when the camera needs to capture a gunshot a firearm is loaded with blanks, which are special cartridges designed to rapidly burn gunpowder out the front of a firearm’s barrel. The hole at the end of the barrel is known as the muzzle, and because a blank contains no projectile but an excess amount of gunpowder, the brief ignition creates a muzzle flash which helps sell a realistic shooting scene.

Blanks, however, are always loaded into a prop gun at the last possible instant. Before that, a safety meeting is called with all cast and crew to explain proper procedures, and eye and ear protection is issued where required. Due to the pressure from the explosion and the particles of burnt and unburnt gunpowder expelled out the barrel, blanks can also be very dangerous at short range, a hazard which diminishes with distance. This is why blanks can be relatively safe to use on film sets – if proper procedures are followed.

From USA Today:

Quote

First the weapon is fetched from a safe. It is immediately checked to make sure there is no ammunition in the chamber. This is often done by shining a flashlight into the barrel or by using a thin rod pushed through the chamber.

If the weapon is brought by an armorer to a prop master, the prop master will perform the exact same check and then put the gun back into its protective sleeve. Once on the set, the gun goes through the same check in the presence of the assistant director.

Quote

At this point in the process, there are options. If the actors and crew are rehearsing, often a rubber replica gun is handed to the actor. If at the next stage of blocking the scene a real weapon is required by the director, then the thoroughly checked empty weapon is brought out.

Once the scene is ready to be shot, the prop master or armorer will load prepared blanks with no bullet tips into the gun’s chamber. “We’ll put in not one more than the number of shots the actor plans to shoot,” Walters says.

Quote

But those aren’t the only safeguards in place. Actors and even sometimes crew will receive training from weapons professionals on gun safety. “You spend time with them, showing how a gun works, how you don’t point it at anyone ever, how you keep your finger off the trigger and always point it down,” Walters says.

To ensure there are no accidents during filming, actors often will be told to “shoot off axis,” Schneider says, which means aiming slightly away from another actor, because camera tricks can compensate for the shift.

If the actor points the weapon in the general direction of crew or the camera, measures are taken. Typically plexiglass shields with holes for the camera lens are crafted to protect operators from any muzzle flashes or gas discharges, even though typically they are never closer than about 15 feet from the weapon. The camera operator might also wear a special suit for protection.

There are plenty of other articles out there about gun safety on film sets due to this incident, but they all stress the same basic rules that the people arguing that he should be charged are advocating for. And had Baldwin followed them this incident wouldn't have happened. He has made enough movies involving firearms in his career that he should have known what a proper set's gun safety rules should be. And furthermore, a single action army replica revolver doesn't require doing any sort of manipulations to determine if there is anything in the cylinder or not. Here's a picture of one of mine that is of the same make loaded.

And here it is unloaded.

You can easily see whether there is anything in the cylinder or not with just a quick glance. There is no manipulation required like there would be on a modern pistol. Given Baldwin's experience as an actor on movies where he handled firearms, he should have at least been knowledgeable about proper procedures to know that something was off based on how things should be handled on set. Ideally, he would have asked why there were "dummy" rounds in the gun that was handed to him and had the armorer remove them and shake them to confirm that they were in fact dummy rounds before continuing to practice his quick draw for the shot. Or he would have asked that they be removed for safety purposes. If he had followed the proper procedures that every armorer has said should be followed in the interviews from the articles I saw he would not have pointed the gun at the cinematographer, cocked the hammer, and pulled the trigger. 

I think ultimately this case is an indictment of the industry as a whole and a very tragic lesson about cutting production costs and the tragedies it can lead to if proper procedures aren't followed. It has apparently led to a greater gun safety focus in Hollywood, which is a good thing, but it truly sucks that it was at the cost of a life lost.

[WhatTheBuck 28937]

2 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

One of my many vices (along w Surly) are true crime cases that I listen to on YT while I'm working. Chris Watts was a big one, as were the Brian Laundrie, Elizabeth Holmes, SBF and the Alec Baldwin cases. I believe based on the police bodycam footage & interview, and problems on set that came to light, plus the fact that he fired the weapon, he should be charged, as well. True, the armorer is responsible for gun safety, but they overloaded that poor girl who should have never been the armorer in the first place. Now, he's suing her, which looks truly awful. I realize that most everyone here disagrees with me, but hey, this is a discussion group.    

However, if you want to learn about THE craziest saga of them all, I recommend learning about the Sarah Boone interrogation case on YouTube. She is the Florida woman awaiting trial who somehow talked her poor boyfriend into a suitcase and then went to bed, while he suffocated! She's now up to her 6th lawyer     

Maybe your true crime show sensationalized the story and distorted your perception of the case. I don’t go for those sorts of programs. 

[TreatyOak 17404]

1 hour ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Maybe your true crime show sensationalized the story and distorted your perception of the case. I don’t go for those sorts of programs. 

Or maybe I was dropped on my head as an infant. But the beauty today is that you can watch the entire raw footage w/ no analysis, which now gives us views of things we've never previously seen before. The bodycam footage from the Baldwin shooting is truly mind-blowing, as the policeman wanders around and we hear from and observe the affected personalities. The interrogation video of Baldwin is also very revealing. 

['stache 22145]

4 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

Well, we're both speaking in circles at this point. I understand the argument people are making here and I respect their opinions. I won't bore you with repeating the other reasons, but it's more than being just about the gun, IMHO. 

Your last comment included "plus the fact that he fired the weapon, he should be charged, as well" so it still seems to be a lot "about the gun" to you. Then something about the armorer being "overloaded" (not sure what that means) and then something to the effect that she probably should not have been hired in the first place. Pretty much everyone here has agreed that if there's liability, it's probably the latter, that as a producer, he might be in trouble for hiring her if she was truly unqualified or if there were live rounds on set. The prosecution has dropped all charges, so it seems pretty clear that nothing he did either with the gun or as a producer rises to criminal liability. He certainly had civil liability exposure, and it's been mentioned that he settled with the family. It really is starting to feel like just hatred for Alec Baldwin. Again, most of us admit he seems like a real prick, but he's not a murderer, negligent or otherwise.

Edited April 24, 2023 by 'stache

[TreatyOak 17404]

10 minutes ago, 'stache said:

Your last comment included "plus the fact that he fired the weapon, he should be charged, as well" so it still seems to be a lot "about the gun" to you. Then something about the armorer being "overloaded" (not sure what that means) and then something to the effect that she probably should not have been hired in the first place. Pretty much everyone here has agreed that if there's liability, it's probably the latter, that as a producer, he might be in trouble for hiring her if she was truly unqualified or if there were live rounds on set. The prosecution has dropped all charges, so it seems pretty clear that nothing he did either with the gun or as a producer rises to criminal liability. He certainly had civil liability exposure, and it's been mentioned that he settled with the family. It really is starting to feel like just hatred for Alec Baldwin. Again, most of us admit he seems like a real prick, but he's not a murderer, negligent or otherwise.

I've stated all the reasons many times that I believe he should be charged. 

[mchookem 16779]

well, he wasn't 

 

['stache 22145]

He apparently knows the law better than a prosecutor who actually worked the case and developed all the facts and even admitted to being biased against Baldwin. And charges were dropped. Whatever speculation many of us had as to why he might be prosecuted turned out the not be there from the people who took a deep look into it. So thats that I guess.

[Tuco 5094]

On 4/22/2023 at 8:33 AM, TreatyOak said:

Well, truthfully, you got me there good, and seriously, congrats on your success and I hope your project is a great success! You were the one who started the insult parade, which is not like you.
 

Regardless, I concepted and wrote our commercials, and participated in shooting, editing, color correcting, etc, for international brands that Hollywood directors chose to shoot for our NYC ad agencies for over 3 decades and also worked w big Hollywood talent, some before they got famous and some after. As someone who has worked extensively on shoots, I do think Baldwin is culpable. I know that’s not a popular view here but who here is surprised that the powerful Hollywood player somehow got his charges dropped while the others didn’t?

Truth

 

Cool. Did you figure out that the role of film "producer"  doesn't really exist for commercials?  In film, a major element is financing - convincing people to invest in the film because it will sell enough tickets.  That just doesn't exist for a commercial.  I'm sure there are people with the title "producer", but it is obviously not the same role.  I mean, I shot a couple music videos, and there was someone with the title "producer" for those, but her main role was to get the donuts and beer.  I'm going to take a wild guess and say Baldwin never brought donuts and beer for the crew. Fucker.  

[TreatyOak 17404]

13 hours ago, Tuco said:

 

Cool. Did you figure out that the role of film "producer"  doesn't really exist for commercials?  In film, a major element is financing - convincing people to invest in the film because it will sell enough tickets.  That just doesn't exist for a commercial.  I'm sure there are people with the title "producer", but it is obviously not the same role.  I mean, I shot a couple music videos, and there was someone with the title "producer" for those, but her main role was to get the donuts and beer.  I'm going to take a wild guess and say Baldwin never brought donuts and beer for the crew. Fucker.  

I've got my views and you have yours. It's all good. 

[Red Five 41767]

I thought everyone here was a lawyer but apparently everyone is also shooting movies/tv shows/commercials. 

[YGIFS 19458]

Surly is starting to sound like Trader Joe's where we all do one another's jobs.  Like the guy restocking frozen foods is also corralling carts in the parking lot before resuming his duties as Chief Financial Officer.  Or we sound like the lamest attempt to impress a chick at a 90's cigar bar.

"Look uh, I'm a lawyer.  But my passion is really producing.  I also dabble in viruses, but like in a good way."  

[Tuco 5094]

18 hours ago, TreatyOak said:

I've got my views and you have yours. It's all good. 

Stop being a twat.  It's a discussion board and you've got probably 50+ posts in this thread.  Don't act like you're above it all when your complete bullshit is called out. If you don't want to talk about it, then stop talking about it.  It's pretty fucking simple.  

[wildcat09 29597]

On 4/24/2023 at 7:08 PM, TreatyOak said:

I've stated all the reasons many times that I believe he should be charged. 

We know. Those reasons just happen to be stupid. 

[TreatyOak 17404]

41 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Stop being a twat.  It's a discussion board and you've got probably 50+ posts in this thread.  Don't act like you're above it all when your complete bullshit is called out. If you don't want to talk about it, then stop talking about it.  It's pretty fucking simple.  

I agree with you that I should stop talking about it, as I don't need to repeat the same points again and again why I think Baldwin should have been charged. Everyone knows my views. Take care.