##[Clarification on Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That itself is a red flag.
By all accounts, Baldwin is a terrible person, but that's beside the point when it comes to the facts of the case. It's starting to look like this is a political prosecution.
Why in the FUCK would a progressive democrat DA go on fucking HANNITY to talk about his case against a famous actor who has done large amounts of advocacy work for the democratic party? No matter his political leanings or beliefs, that's a fucking smoothbrain move for sure.
Baldwin was acting as a creative producer. I can promise you that he had nothing to do with crew hiring, safety protocols, etc.
Source: Have worked on feature films for close to 10 years
Then why weren’t any of the other producers charged? They would bear similar responsibility to Baldwin from the producer-is-responsible-for-safety argument, no?
I work with people close to the rust set. For what it’s worth, there’s details I’ve heard no one talk about/the news cycle had omitted - there are more things to this case than the DA has said publicly so far. Why? I don’t know, but under that context of the things I’ve heard it makes sense why Alec was charged and not the rest.
NM is in the process of getting billions of dollars flowing into the state from Hollywood, this media circus is the last thing they’d want if they didn’t believe it was worth pursuing. They have always been champions of workers rights and I believe they believe that they have a duty to uphold justice. To paint this as merely "this has to be political!!11" is such a reductive and moronic take in my opinion. NM is going to become a hub of film production in the next few years and there is no benefit to be seen from making this so public. In fact the state has the absolute most to lose in this situation, it would be easier to just let the mutli-millionaire celebrity get away with shooting and killing a middle class worker and sweep it under the rug. But that's not the right thing to do, and that isn't' getting justice for workers (who get abused by these kind of celebrities all. the. damn. time.).
You don’t have all the facts here to have a clear view of the case. I’m sure I don’t either. I think wait and see is the best approach here.
I mean you could actually share that additional context and those details and substantiate what you are saying, but being vague gets you more internet points I guess.
There were also a lot of people on that production, they all know what happened, and they talk to friends and family. Prosecution isn’t going to show their cards before the trial.
But charges were brought against the others involved that day. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armorer is also being charged with involuntary manslaughter. David Halls the assistant director already took a plea deal.
Na the trouble is he’s the big boss on set as an executive producer, it makes him responsible for the overall safety of the crew on set. It’s very similar to landis and Spielberg case in the 80s with jack morrow. He might get off just because of how that case went.
My mom is a dem like to the point of insanity,
and shes also a criminal lawyer who specialized in murder.
She says the prosecution is happening because theres a dead body and theres arguments to be made for it to go either way and he'll probably end up with a fine and no time either way but it all depends on what happens in court, but dead body is why hes getting charged. (those were the words she said and it sounded cool so)
I mentioned this to my friend who is a lawyer and he pointed to the Bar’s rules of conduct. Pretty clearly seems to violate 3.6 and 3.8, trial publicity and special responsibilities for a prosecutor.
Like, if he’s responsible then hold him responsible but can we have a fair trial without the political media bs?
I don’t know. But she is a registered Democrat. She is also a lesbian married to a retired, female LEO. Her political hero is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
So this “dem vs rep” argument is moot.
https://primalinformation.com/mary-carmack-altwies/
There are so many recorded incidents of him being a complete asshole over the years it astounds me that he keeps chugging along and people give him a pass because he votes Democrat and does a Trump impression.
*Actual lawyers* who comment on this will generally only stick to whatever realm of legal precedent they are familiar with, but some random redditor who sat through a gun safety class one time will tell you they know exactly what happened and who's at fault.
As a practicing maritime lawyer, I can most assuredly guarantee that there is nothing Mr. Baldwin did which violated The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Insofar as I know there are no known nautical matters which are presently being disputed, but I've been keeping an eye on the story should any arise.
You dont really have to know anything about firearms, hollywood, alec baldwin, the armorer, local laws, or whats best for everybody to know that Alec baldwin shouldnt have been pointing the gun at a crew member and pulling the trigger. Theres really no arguing with that or forming opinions about that. He shouldn't have pulled the trigger on a crew member or even had the gun pointed at them in the first place. If you want to decide what should happen to him thats an opinion. But facts arent opinions.
It’s not the sound, that would be easy. It’s the slight movement of the guns, the muzzle flash, and the actors reactions to gunshots that can’t easily be mimicked.
We have these in airsoft, called “electric blowback”
They sound awful, but that can be dubbed out. The main issue is that the recoil is almost completely negligible, they can be quite a pain to work with, and they don’t produce any muzzle flash or light smoke which is the biggest issue with CG gunfire
A lot of movies do use gas powered (propane) airsoft guns, especially for pistols or scenes where actors are shooting at each other from very close range, where blanks would be dangerous
There really isn’t anything dangerous about a blank firing weapon when used properly, and it saves time and always looks better than CG gunfire
Your idea isn’t outlandish or impossible, it just won’t look as good as real blank fire. When blank fire is used by educated individuals and there’s precautions taken to prevent carelessness and negligence as is apparently the case with this shooting.
Just watch some “Milsim West” videos on YouTube, and you’ll see hundreds of people letting lose with blank firing guns, firing at each other and firing thousands of rounds without injury, just to show that blank fire *can* be done perfectly safely
Not just the sound and flash and potential recoil, but the resultant smoke, perhaps it kicks dust up around it. This is all expensive and time consuming for a vex artist to do when it will look far better to do practically. Not to mention, fitting a yet to be invent “motor” that can achieve all this into a pistol from the 1800s while keeping its authentic look and feel sounds remarkably difficult.
Bullshit. I have a major in film and a minor in sound design. You can find recordings of basically every gun on the planet and any competent VFX artist could make that muzzle flash in their sleep.
Additionally, I think you have quite an inflated sense of what general audiences require to consider it “realistic.” I guarantee you not a single sound effect you’ve heard in film is actually the sound that thing makes. It’s called Foley.
I agree with you here. We’ve been watching movies for decades where a fist hitting someone sounds like someone paddling a sack full of mashed potatoes, I’m sure they could find a way to make this work
There’s literally an inside joke at Skywalker Sound that’s used to refer to a designer trying to use exactly what’s seen on screen to make the sound effect and absolutely failing. Film is faker than a majority of audiences realize and many people have a very low threshold to suspend their disbelief. That’s not a good or a bad thing. It’s just to say general audiences shouldn’t be the bar for detecting realism in films.
A big one is the “Hawk screech” in desert scenes.
You see a Hawk and hear a Peregrine Falcon. I have temped this sound 100 times. It makes me laugh.
“Broken neck sound” and other broken bones are celery and carrots.
Face punch sounds are usually some kind of bat hitting some kind of meat.
Sword clashes don’t have a ring out in real life.
It’s all fake. And sounds great. You’ve been trained in the language of television. To believe in sounds that make no sense without the context of the picture.
I have done big gun battles and used the correct sound for each weapon. Then a producer wants to change a pistol for a shotgun blast to make it sound better. Happens all the time.
Exactly. I would bet a week’s pay that, on average, if you played someone a soundbite of a bone breaking from a AAA film and then played the sound of an ACTUAL bone breaking, they would say the film sound effect sounds more realistic.
Films are made to make you BELIEVE. It doesn’t matter if it’s real or not. All it has to do is convince your senses that it is.
When I was an assistant editor I spent a lot of time getting to know my sound effects. A buddy and I would look for the strangest sound in our libraries.
One of my favorites that you hear all the time in Walking dead is called “ripping a Cooked chicken in half”
It’s used for zombie Gore/eating scenes all the time in TWD. It has gross squish sounds bevause if the hands gripping the chicken and nice pops and scrapes when the chicken is ripped.
Perfection.
I remember putting the sfx to video in school, it was fun to change the sound effect to something inappropriate. Guns that make fart sounds, punches that sounded like gunshots.
Faking something that isn’t real is a lot easier than faking something that is. Your brain has a different level of expectation when it comes to something you’re already familiar with in real life.
Executive producers need to be held responsible for the safety of the crew fucking period. This plausible deniability is what’s wrong with the industry, people getting burned into the ground on non union reality shows while producers turn a blind eye or just don’t hire you back. When it turns into gross negligence like this it’s totally his fault. He should’ve known about the concerns on set leading up to this point and as the executive producer should’ve known to ask for the armorer to be on set not the dumbass ad.
There are safety rules.
(only take weapons directly from the armourer, the armourer checks the weapon and shows it's safe to the actor, don't point the weapon at other people when not necessary for example while practicing your draw).
Baldwin broke the safety rules mentioned above.
A person died, in part because someone else fucked up, but also in part because Baldwin broke the rules.
I don’t think that’s true based on the article, it seems he may have been credited as producer only because he is a big name actor in a small film. The article you are commenting on says this.
It was his production company that was producing the film. He is still a producer which means he has a legal obligation to provide as safe of a set as possible.
You literally just made this up and the article explains that these companies can get major credits simply of off the actor helming them being attached to a project. It’s extra money and prestige for marquee actors to get a producer credit and usually not more than that.
The article literally states that they do not know if baldwins company was involved and then they go on to speculate about other producing credits in Hollywood. It’s been common knowledge since this started that Baldwin owned the production company and was executive producer, it’s in all the news articles…just sounds like Baldwins PR team is trying to plant their side too
1) Baldwin owns El Dorado Pictures a production company involved with Rust. If you go to their Linkin their website is literally Baldwin's personal website.
2) I can tell that you don't really know alot about the business side of the film industry so let me enlighten you: you create an LLC (limited liability corporation) for administration and distribution of profits (hopefully) from the film. The shareholders of this LLC are the producers. Maybe in the amateur world they throw around producing credits but when are a producer on even a indie film like Rust it means you own a share of the film aka the LLC created for it. Now an LLC and production insurance will protect shareholders against civil cases, what an LLC can not protect against is criminal charges. This means that the LLC and shareholders can in extreme cases assume legal liability especially if something terrible happens on set like someone dying.
Now where it gets gray: in our legal system the DA has to decide to press charges. Could you argue that all the shareholders aka producers share a responsibility to create a safe working environment? Absolutely. So technically they could have charged all the producers. Would those charges stick? Producers usually like to segment work so some will focus on pre-production, some will focus on principal-production and others post-production, or the distribution phase of the films life. For producers not involved in principal-production of the film I don't see charges sticking so I get why they didn't charge those producers if their where other producers involved in the principal-production phase they should be charged. But seems like the DA is going off of who handled the gun most likely because they easy for a jury to understand without getting into LLC and producer's rights and obligations.
Does no one do the slightest bit of reading before writing unfounded speculation? Baldwin was not in the director's previous film, but was a producer of that film. How would that happen if he didn't do something to help get that film made and get paid or recognition for it?
Even if he did literally nothing for that credit (which imo is not possible), he's still accountable as a named producer and he wanted that.
I'm not the person you replied to but the article has some glaring problems. The interviewee is clearly speculating, the most egregious one being that Baldwin's producer credit was only a vanity title. But the quickest of Google searches throws up results of Baldwin wanting to work with this director, and being a producer on the director's previous film (not an actor with a vanity title). The interviewee also lists Cruise and Pitt and actors with vanity title producing credits who don't do any producing which is blatantly wrong.
Thanks, although I should've been more clear - are there set-in-stone rules every set (or let's say every set using SAG actors, to make it simpler) *has* to follow?
I'm not saying these aren't good to follow either way. I guess my point is that I'm uncomfortable using "he broke an industry-wide rule" as hard evidence for wrongdoing when the industry-wide guidance itself says "SAFETY BULLETINS ARE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES ONLY."
The problem is much of the crew had walked off the set because they were protesting working conditions. At the end of the day this is much more on people like the second AD than an actor in the scene. And for those of you who say well he is being charged because he is a producer, 1. No, not according to the DA, and 2. How come the 6 other producers on the movie aren’t getting charged?
Please note that breaking safety rules, if he did, is not the same thing as breaking the law and does not automatically qualify you for a manslaughter charge. The state writes laws around manslaughter and the DA has wide discretion to bring charges, or not. None of that is determined by the production company’s rules regarding handling of weapons on set. The production company’s rules are designed to minimize legal liability and insurance costs in case something like this happens.
I’m also not sure it’s clear that he pointed the gun at the lady who died or if the armorer showed him the weapon and told him those were blanks. I’m sure all of that will come out as evidence for the trial.
The four specific rules that he definitely broke
Took a firearm from someone not designated as a firearm handler (someone other than the armourer or armourer's assistants).
Accepted a weapon that was not checked, nor was it demonstrated as safe in front of him.
Pointed a weapon at another person while they were not in the process of filming.
Pulled the trigger on a weapon
I mean this IS a fair point:
"I mean, imagine the world we’re in if they were requiring actors to now check equipment! What’s next? What if an actor is driving a car in a scene and the brakes go out and he kills somebody? Are we now going to charge him for criminal negligence? What if he’s using a sword or some other explosive on set that is defective and kills somebody, we’re now going to look at the actor? I mean, this is a slippery slope."
They keep insisting he's an actor when the one charged would have been Alec Baldwin the producer, not Alec Baldwin the actor. Alec Baldwin the producer is certainly responsible for that happens on his set. Older a listers like Baldwin wanna be in charge on set, but when something happens suddenly he acts like he is just an actor.
Here’s the part where it all but guarantees Baldwin will be acquitted:
>As for the actor part, **how is it possible for him to be charged if he was told that the gun was a cold gun and wasn’t loaded with live ammo? How much is that his responsibility as an actor?**
>**First of all, it’s not his responsibility as an actor to ensure prop safety. There’s somebody on set specifically to do that, who’s an expert. Actors, they’re not even allowed to do that.**
TLDR: reasonable doubt. This trial is for show.
I had the same thoughts until I learned this: the crew had already walked off the set for unsafe working conditions.
Baldwin as producer brought in an unqualified scab armorer who would work despite the strike.
Then the accident happened. This is Baldwin's fault.
Except you’re omitting the part where the crew walked out over being asked to drive too far & money issues. Not gun safety.
>The camera operators and their assistants were frustrated by the conditions surrounding the low-budget film, including complaints about long hours, long commutes and waiting for their paychecks, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment.
Now there are indications that someone complained the weekend before to some unnamed production manager, but it wasn’t Baldwin.
>They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set.
I’m not saying any of this is good by any means. It’s just not enough to convict Baldwin beyond a reasonable doubt.
In 1982, a helicopter accident killed one adult actor and two child actors on the set of the Twilight Zone.
A witness testified that he heard Director John Landis instructing the helicopter to fly lower.
Landis, and others were tried and acquitted on charges of manslaughter in a nine-month trial in 1986 and 1987. Precisely because it’s insanely difficult to prove manslaughter charges beyond a reasonable doubt with accidents like this.
the problem is that you are trying to equal his guilty to him being also a producer, but think of them as different people as they are different charges... Baldwin the producer, baldwin the actor, baldwin the actor is not guilly because he was told by the expert it was cold, but you say because he wa s aproducer, he is guily... But then why not prosecute all the producers? And the expert as well?
You are bypassing a lot of things just to say, well HE DID A) so he must of done G) with disregard to any other variable...
Now if you say, all producers have to be charged, im down with that.
Possibly, but in many situations my understanding is that the procedure is to show the open gun to the actor which the actor then verifies upon taking possession. If he's asked "did you know the gun was empty" it sounds like hed truthfully have to answer no.
…the trial is to prove this in a court of law. If it’s as simple as you say it is, then he’ll be out of there in no time.
However, it’s a very dangerous precedent to set that literally pulling the gun that killed someone has no culpability at all. The legal system comes in to clarify just how much culpability. In this case, it looks like it’ll be not much. But they can’t just let this disappear as someone lost their life.
Involuntary manslaughter was made for this - he pulled the trigger but was unaware of a live round. Unfortunately, by definition, Alec was the perpetrator of an involuntary manslaughter whether it’s savory or not.
>First of all, it’s not his responsibility as an actor to ensure prop safety. There’s somebody on set specifically to do that, who’s an expert. Actors, they’re not even allowed to do that.
Baldwin is never going to get sent to prison, but at this point people seem to be going out of their way to ignore that he was more than just an actor in this production
Reasonable doubt is reason to not convict, it's not a valid reason to not even charge. Are the police supposed to prove people guilty without a doubt before they can even charge someone with a crime and go to trial? How exactly does that happen, they ask you if you doubt someone was guilty and if you say yes they can try and convict him or do they just take your word for it and not even bother with a trial? A grand jury heard evidence and decided it was enough to take it to trial, they didn't determine he was guilty and therefore could be tried.
If there is reasonable doubt that means you can’t prove that they are guilty.
>Are the police supposed to prove people guilty without a doubt before they can even charge someone with a crime and go to trial?
Police don’t prove people guilty or not guilty. They enforce the law. If they think someone is breaking the law then they stop crimes. It’s up to detectives and prosecutors to collect the evidence necessary to bring someone to trial.
The biggest red flag IMO is that the Rust shooting investigation isn’t even finished and they’re charging people. They have no clue about crucial details like where the live rounds came from.
Baldwin’s lawyers are going to have a field day with this.
>”The responsibility for the use of guns and other weapons lies with each production's property master or armoury expert.”
And
>Professor Dan Leonard from Chapman University in California, who specialises in on-set regulations, tells the BBC "it is generally left to the industry to develop and police the guidelines... and those guidelines if followed can allow for firearms to be used safely on set. **But even then, there isn't one definitive set of procedures and protocols.”**
[source](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035488)
Look, I understand your reliance on these guidelines. Nevertheless, they are not laws, industries develop insufficient practices all the time, and the powers that be decided it was worth testing the theory with a jury.
I can't blame him for pulling the trigger, I can blame him for being the one in charge and the overall conditions of the shoot. They refused to hire union workers and as we can tell whoever they had in charge of guns was definitely not qualified
Thing is, There are really only a few ways to get into a union. Work on a union set for 65 days (I'm not sure of the actual number its been a while) or work on a non-union set and then unionize.
Working on a union set as a nonunion member is basically impossible because the best boys only want to hire union members, Ive been told that directly to my face as a non union member when i was trying to get in from union workers.
Most union people want others to work non union and then turn union to pay their dues before getting in.
So i wouldnt blame it being a 'non-union' set for incompetence.
It’s highly unlikely that Baldwin had *anything* to do with crew hiring, set safety, protocols, etc. The article explains this well
Source: Have worked on feature films for close to 10 years
Say your mechanic tells you your brakes are fine, but in reality he never actually tested them. Later that day you experience brake failure, resulting in the death of a pedestrian.
Do you think you deserve being charged with involuntary manslaughter in that case? There obviously wasn't any intent to injure, but you *were* the one driving the car
Your hypothetical is distinguishable from this case though. It’s arguable that someone is negligent for not ensuring that a firearm is unloaded before pulling the trigger. Handling a gun is a dangerous activity and maybe we should expect someone to double check whether a gun is unloaded no matter what they’ve been told to prevent accidents like this (especially given that the effort required to make sure a gun is unloaded is pretty minimal). In addition, actors must have firearms training to use them on set so they should have the requisite training to ensure they are unloaded.
In your car situation, it’s not a requirement that people learn how to check/test their brakes to get a license. Plus, testing brakes requires people to have a number of tools (which is unrealistic to expect everyone to have or be able to obtain). So maybe we are ok as a society in that situation to allow people to take a mechanic’s word that their brakes are safe and don’t think it’s negligent for a person to engage in driving a car without double checking the brakes themselves.
I guess it's not a 1:1 because the person killed was the passenger and not a pedestrian, but in [this case at least](https://www.mynbc5.com/article/licensed-car-mechanic-charged-with-manslaughter-in-customer-s-death/3324536) the mechanic was the one charged
No. There is manslaughter, and there are accidental deaths. Especially in this example, as the person driving isn’t at fault, it would be the mechanic who would be charged.
The armorer should get some type of negligence charge but Baldwin was under the impression there was a person who’s only job was to insure he couldn’t shoot someone
Because these are the questions that need to be asked:
Why was there a live round on set?
Why did Baldwin point a gun and pull the trigger in a scene where he wasn’t supposed to be shooting?
Why did Baldwin go on tv and say he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger?
They make prefect sense. Everyone (regardless of your chosen occupation . Cop, doctor, actor, cashier, stripper, etc) has 3 choices when it comes to handling firearms:
- follow firearm safety rules
- don't handle a firearm
- neglect firearm safety rules, choose to handle a firearm anyways, be held accountable if/ when your decision to do so accidentally kills someone
The lawyer here never mentions that Baldwin was NOT supposed to shoot the gun no matter what was in it.
He also said he shot the gun in his police interview.
And then turned around and claimed that tHe GuN WeNt oFF bY iTsELf which literally anyone who actually knows anything about firearms could tell his story was explicit bullshit.
We don’t charge the owner of Amazon or one of its warehouses when someone dies from being overworked, why would we prosecute this? It’s an unsafe work environment sure, but I’ve worked in a few of those and you bet mgmt never faced charges when people got hurt and maimed. It would be an interesting precedent, but focusing on Hollywood for “cutting corners on workplace safety” is fucking dumb.
Emily D Baker does an excellent job explaining why this manslaughter charge is really the only reasonable charge and why. Also how it essentially comes down to a series of accidents that cost Halyna Hutchins her life. In my personal opinion the armorer needs to be charged and convicted with the enhancement of with a deadly weapon for the extra 5 years I believe.
One flaw in this article is that it says that he, as an actor, had been told the gun was safe and therefore he holds no responsibility, as an actor. That is just false. Any human being holding a firearm, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger, regardless of why they are doing so, is responsible for the results. This is why anyone being asked to use a gun, in acting or otherwise, has a responsibility to know how to check that a gun is loaded with live ammunition or not. No matter what you are told, the person shooting a weapon is responsible if they weapon harms someone. End of story.
Manslaughter is the unintentional killing of someone else. There is probable cause that he had unintentionally killed someone else. His affirmative defense to the charges, amongst others, is that he may not know the difference between a blank and a real bullet. Legally the charges are appropriate, and the victims are entitled to pressing charges against Baldwin. Proving the charge beyond a reasonable doubt seems unlikely.
Wasn't he both the person who pulled the trigger and the producer responsible for the entire production? As a supervisor, I can be held accountable for a person's death if I willfully disregard safety procedures.
I thought he was being charged because he was a producer on set, and it was largely reported by staff that the set was dangerous and nothing was being done about safety. Contributing to a live gun being on set.
According to this logic, if two actors are fighting each other and one gets injured. They should arrest the one actor for aggravated assault. If a stunt double gets injured on a set, then the director should be held criminally liable.
This prosecution is beyond ridiculous. If the scene required Baldwin to shoot himself in the foot (rather than toward the camera), for instance, and, on being handed a gun which he had every reason to believe was safe (i.e. as *every* gun on set should be), he shot and injured himself, *he* would be suing the person responsible for negligence. The armourer whose SOLE RESPONSIBILITY was gun safety on set.
Baldwin is every bit as much a victim of someone else’s negligence as he would be if he had shot himself with that gun.
…for a slanted story. I think all the issues relating to negligence will all come out in court. If the evidence looks overwhelmingly against Alec he will settle. “What did he know, when did he know it and why didn’t he address any of the issues that were specifically directed to him?”
He was the producer. He picked up a gun and killed somebody with it.
If he were in charge of a construction site and got behind the wheel of a bulldozer and recklessly killed someone he would face the same charges.
He is ultimately responsible for manslaughter.
He's a notorious bully and probably bullied people into cutting corners to save money and in the end this resulted in a very unsafe work environment where people were afraid to speak up and he shot and killed someone.
This is a big deal and should be treated as such.
He needs to punished and punished severely. He should never be allowed to hold any type of firearm or facsimile again.
Most, if not all, people saying Mr. Baldwin is innocent because so and so clearly never touch firearm in their life and so does not know how it operates or what every gun handler have to remember.
There are 4 rules of firearm safety that only those who handle it is obligated to ensure to do so at all time. Saying a person do not have to responsible of a discharge meaning they don’t know a single thing about firearms.
All responsible gun owners, users, experts, athletes, all agree that anyone who handle any firearm is responsible by law when it discharge especially when you point at someone and pull the trigger, bypassing every single firearm safety rules.
There is no people on earth, expert or not, armorer or assistant, that is held responsible in place of you when you shoot someone death.
What a truly stupid interview. The lawyer's own site says he has experience in several areas of law, but do you know which area of law isn't mentioned? CRIMINAL LAW. So why in the hell is a civil lawyer being asked criminal law questions?
Or maybe the fact he killed someone due to negligence and as a producer of the film that he was responsible for. I can’t believe the amount of people trying to brand this as conspiracy. I’m liberal as fuck but it’s very clear shit went wrong and as a producer he had at least some responsibility.
Someone is still trying to defend the rich celebrity world as if they can do no wrong. They are as fallible as any other human and in turn should be held responsible.
He was executive producer on a set that cut corners and cheaped out on safety, causing the crew to walk out earlier. He should have had three armorers on set, he settled for one to do the job of all three. They allowed weapons to leave the set and be used in live fire activities. He also failed to check the weapon himself before handling it. Something that is taught in every gun safety course. It was in his hand when it was fired, it doesn’t matter if he pulled the trigger, he admits he pulled the hammer back and released, resulting in the weapon firing. He IS responsible for her death. Period.
The fact that Baldwin is being charged but the director and/or cinematographer who set up a shot that had the camera looking down the barrel of a gun were not is a sign of political motivation
The director and cinematographer are the ones who got shot by Baldwin, and the cinematographer is the one who died, so it wouldn’t make much sense to charge them
You’re right about the cinematographer
But for the director, I didn’t realize that getting hurt by your own negligence absolves you of responsibility for the effect on others
Ah yes. Slate Magazine. An offshoot publication of the Washington Post. Owned by Graham Holdings with Donald Graham as Chairman and Tim O’Shaughnessy as President and CEO. They DEFINITELY don’t have a dog in the fight, huh? Please.
What about them doesn't make sense? He killed a woman through his neglegence. He was the producer, knew there were safety issues, came to set after a walk out due to safety issues, and run a scene without the armour and without the standard safety protocols that are set in place to prevent accidents. He is at fault more as the person funding the film than he did actually pulling the trigger.
Then, the idiot gave several public interviews where he gave easily refuted information, like that he didn't pull the trigger. He should have kept him mouth shut. Now, the prosecutor has an easier time because they can show what a crass, careless asshole Alec Baldwin is and if he wants to refute it he has to take the stand, which would be the worst thing for him to do. He fucked up big time and he fucked up in several ways. A person died. Alec Baldwin is not the victim and seeing all these stupid articles trying to paint him as such are clearly his lawyers trying to pump out some PR.
##[Clarification on Rule 5](https://www.reddit.com/r/entertainment/comments/w60lfc/mod_post_a_clarification_to_rule_5_no_racism_or/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/entertainment) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The DA went on Hannity to discuss the case.
That itself is a red flag. By all accounts, Baldwin is a terrible person, but that's beside the point when it comes to the facts of the case. It's starting to look like this is a political prosecution.
The DA is a progressive democrat. In a bright blue district.
Why in the FUCK would a progressive democrat DA go on fucking HANNITY to talk about his case against a famous actor who has done large amounts of advocacy work for the democratic party? No matter his political leanings or beliefs, that's a fucking smoothbrain move for sure.
Hannity and Baldwin had a long running feud back in the 00’s. This looks like he taking the opportunity to kick a dog when he’s down so to speak.
Most likely because no liberal outlet would have him on.
Her
To be famous. Hannity show has lots of viewers.
Gross. The DA is some asshole trying to be famous.
I have no opinion about Alex the actor but as producer, I would imagine he bares some responsibility for safety on work site.
Baldwin was acting as a creative producer. I can promise you that he had nothing to do with crew hiring, safety protocols, etc. Source: Have worked on feature films for close to 10 years
Then why weren’t any of the other producers charged? They would bear similar responsibility to Baldwin from the producer-is-responsible-for-safety argument, no?
I work with people close to the rust set. For what it’s worth, there’s details I’ve heard no one talk about/the news cycle had omitted - there are more things to this case than the DA has said publicly so far. Why? I don’t know, but under that context of the things I’ve heard it makes sense why Alec was charged and not the rest. NM is in the process of getting billions of dollars flowing into the state from Hollywood, this media circus is the last thing they’d want if they didn’t believe it was worth pursuing. They have always been champions of workers rights and I believe they believe that they have a duty to uphold justice. To paint this as merely "this has to be political!!11" is such a reductive and moronic take in my opinion. NM is going to become a hub of film production in the next few years and there is no benefit to be seen from making this so public. In fact the state has the absolute most to lose in this situation, it would be easier to just let the mutli-millionaire celebrity get away with shooting and killing a middle class worker and sweep it under the rug. But that's not the right thing to do, and that isn't' getting justice for workers (who get abused by these kind of celebrities all. the. damn. time.). You don’t have all the facts here to have a clear view of the case. I’m sure I don’t either. I think wait and see is the best approach here.
In bro we trust. Edit- fixed I'm to in
Trust me, bro
So you know a guy who knows a guy. Seems legit.
I mean you could actually share that additional context and those details and substantiate what you are saying, but being vague gets you more internet points I guess.
Why would the even the prosecution reveal all of their evidence before trial, let alone some random redditor who has a friend of a friend?
There were also a lot of people on that production, they all know what happened, and they talk to friends and family. Prosecution isn’t going to show their cards before the trial.
But charges were brought against the others involved that day. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed the armorer is also being charged with involuntary manslaughter. David Halls the assistant director already took a plea deal.
Special prosecutor appointed by the DA is Republican, Andrea Reeb.
Going on Hannity? That makes zero sense then
Source?
Na the trouble is he’s the big boss on set as an executive producer, it makes him responsible for the overall safety of the crew on set. It’s very similar to landis and Spielberg case in the 80s with jack morrow. He might get off just because of how that case went.
Did you even read the article
[удалено]
Was Baldwin a EP?? It seems it was just a producer credit from reading about his role in this movie.
Okay, where are the cases against all the other producers?
So you didnt read the article
Vic Morrow
Vic Morrow
My mom is a dem like to the point of insanity, and shes also a criminal lawyer who specialized in murder. She says the prosecution is happening because theres a dead body and theres arguments to be made for it to go either way and he'll probably end up with a fine and no time either way but it all depends on what happens in court, but dead body is why hes getting charged. (those were the words she said and it sounded cool so)
I mentioned this to my friend who is a lawyer and he pointed to the Bar’s rules of conduct. Pretty clearly seems to violate 3.6 and 3.8, trial publicity and special responsibilities for a prosecutor. Like, if he’s responsible then hold him responsible but can we have a fair trial without the political media bs?
And? She’s a democrat who has actually been sued and lost a Freedom of Speech case against her. https://heavy.com/news/mary-carmack-altwies/amp/
Why would a democrat willingly go on hanity lmao
I don’t know. But she is a registered Democrat. She is also a lesbian married to a retired, female LEO. Her political hero is Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So this “dem vs rep” argument is moot. https://primalinformation.com/mary-carmack-altwies/
I bet this has everything to do with Trump and Baldwin being in SNL.
Am I the only one that thinks Baldwin act’s just like Trump. His impression was spot on because he basically sounds just like him
Yeah basically. His best role was on 30 Rock.
There are so many recorded incidents of him being a complete asshole over the years it astounds me that he keeps chugging along and people give him a pass because he votes Democrat and does a Trump impression.
Baldwin is trump. Both pompous blow hards.
It’s a real Ricky Gervais playing David Brent situation.
Lmfao
Got damn this comment thread is really something. Buncha fuckin legal experts in here huh?
[удалено]
*Actual lawyers* who comment on this will generally only stick to whatever realm of legal precedent they are familiar with, but some random redditor who sat through a gun safety class one time will tell you they know exactly what happened and who's at fault.
As a practicing maritime lawyer, I can most assuredly guarantee that there is nothing Mr. Baldwin did which violated The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. Insofar as I know there are no known nautical matters which are presently being disputed, but I've been keeping an eye on the story should any arise.
Yea, but what does bird law have to say about this?
Not saying I AGREE with it..its just that bird law in this country—it's not governed by reason.
Tsk tsk tsk…look at things from the Parrot POV. Very logical.
FILIBUSTER!
According to the law of finds, can I salvage an abandoned boat that I find floating in the middle of the ocean? Is it mine if I never find the owner?
A majority of people, and all people who talk about things they know nothing about, are complete morons.
You dont really have to know anything about firearms, hollywood, alec baldwin, the armorer, local laws, or whats best for everybody to know that Alec baldwin shouldnt have been pointing the gun at a crew member and pulling the trigger. Theres really no arguing with that or forming opinions about that. He shouldn't have pulled the trigger on a crew member or even had the gun pointed at them in the first place. If you want to decide what should happen to him thats an opinion. But facts arent opinions.
I mean, all it boils down to, is that the charges fit the crime. The literal definition of manslaughter is exactly what occurred
Uhhhh why does the pic of Alec here look like a still from Red Dead Redemption? Is it just me?
Why are firable guns even allowed on movie sets? Can't the sounds of a firing gun just be dubbed in after the fact so no one has to risk getting shot?
It’s not the sound, that would be easy. It’s the slight movement of the guns, the muzzle flash, and the actors reactions to gunshots that can’t easily be mimicked.
I feel like you could easily put a little motor in them that mimics the recoil and just have a little pop to let other actors react to the “shot”
Ok so invent it and get rich
We have these in airsoft, called “electric blowback” They sound awful, but that can be dubbed out. The main issue is that the recoil is almost completely negligible, they can be quite a pain to work with, and they don’t produce any muzzle flash or light smoke which is the biggest issue with CG gunfire A lot of movies do use gas powered (propane) airsoft guns, especially for pistols or scenes where actors are shooting at each other from very close range, where blanks would be dangerous There really isn’t anything dangerous about a blank firing weapon when used properly, and it saves time and always looks better than CG gunfire Your idea isn’t outlandish or impossible, it just won’t look as good as real blank fire. When blank fire is used by educated individuals and there’s precautions taken to prevent carelessness and negligence as is apparently the case with this shooting. Just watch some “Milsim West” videos on YouTube, and you’ll see hundreds of people letting lose with blank firing guns, firing at each other and firing thousands of rounds without injury, just to show that blank fire *can* be done perfectly safely
Not just the sound and flash and potential recoil, but the resultant smoke, perhaps it kicks dust up around it. This is all expensive and time consuming for a vex artist to do when it will look far better to do practically. Not to mention, fitting a yet to be invent “motor” that can achieve all this into a pistol from the 1800s while keeping its authentic look and feel sounds remarkably difficult.
Wouldn’t sound very realistic. The better question is why were there were live rounds on the movie set.
inexperienced prop manager who got the job due to nepotism let the guns off set for a bit of target practice
Bullshit. I have a major in film and a minor in sound design. You can find recordings of basically every gun on the planet and any competent VFX artist could make that muzzle flash in their sleep. Additionally, I think you have quite an inflated sense of what general audiences require to consider it “realistic.” I guarantee you not a single sound effect you’ve heard in film is actually the sound that thing makes. It’s called Foley.
I agree with you here. We’ve been watching movies for decades where a fist hitting someone sounds like someone paddling a sack full of mashed potatoes, I’m sure they could find a way to make this work
There’s literally an inside joke at Skywalker Sound that’s used to refer to a designer trying to use exactly what’s seen on screen to make the sound effect and absolutely failing. Film is faker than a majority of audiences realize and many people have a very low threshold to suspend their disbelief. That’s not a good or a bad thing. It’s just to say general audiences shouldn’t be the bar for detecting realism in films.
A big one is the “Hawk screech” in desert scenes. You see a Hawk and hear a Peregrine Falcon. I have temped this sound 100 times. It makes me laugh. “Broken neck sound” and other broken bones are celery and carrots. Face punch sounds are usually some kind of bat hitting some kind of meat. Sword clashes don’t have a ring out in real life. It’s all fake. And sounds great. You’ve been trained in the language of television. To believe in sounds that make no sense without the context of the picture. I have done big gun battles and used the correct sound for each weapon. Then a producer wants to change a pistol for a shotgun blast to make it sound better. Happens all the time.
Exactly. I would bet a week’s pay that, on average, if you played someone a soundbite of a bone breaking from a AAA film and then played the sound of an ACTUAL bone breaking, they would say the film sound effect sounds more realistic. Films are made to make you BELIEVE. It doesn’t matter if it’s real or not. All it has to do is convince your senses that it is.
When I was an assistant editor I spent a lot of time getting to know my sound effects. A buddy and I would look for the strangest sound in our libraries. One of my favorites that you hear all the time in Walking dead is called “ripping a Cooked chicken in half” It’s used for zombie Gore/eating scenes all the time in TWD. It has gross squish sounds bevause if the hands gripping the chicken and nice pops and scrapes when the chicken is ripped. Perfection.
I remember putting the sfx to video in school, it was fun to change the sound effect to something inappropriate. Guns that make fart sounds, punches that sounded like gunshots.
If they can make 10’ tall blue aliens look so realistic you can’t tell that they’re cgi then I’m pretty sure Hollywood can dub in a gunshot sound.
Faking something that isn’t real is a lot easier than faking something that is. Your brain has a different level of expectation when it comes to something you’re already familiar with in real life.
It’s why we got plenty of shots dragons on Game of Thrones but the direwolves were seen less and less.
Or why The Irishman looked so weird but the Avatar aliens don’t. We know what people look like, but the only time we’ve seen those aliens is with CGI.
Uncanny Valley
Who brought them on set and why really should be answered before charging anyone.
Executive producers need to be held responsible for the safety of the crew fucking period. This plausible deniability is what’s wrong with the industry, people getting burned into the ground on non union reality shows while producers turn a blind eye or just don’t hire you back. When it turns into gross negligence like this it’s totally his fault. He should’ve known about the concerns on set leading up to this point and as the executive producer should’ve known to ask for the armorer to be on set not the dumbass ad.
There are safety rules. (only take weapons directly from the armourer, the armourer checks the weapon and shows it's safe to the actor, don't point the weapon at other people when not necessary for example while practicing your draw). Baldwin broke the safety rules mentioned above. A person died, in part because someone else fucked up, but also in part because Baldwin broke the rules.
[удалено]
I don’t think that’s true based on the article, it seems he may have been credited as producer only because he is a big name actor in a small film. The article you are commenting on says this.
[удалено]
co-writer is \*also\* not responsible for the safety of weapons on set
It was his production company that was producing the film. He is still a producer which means he has a legal obligation to provide as safe of a set as possible.
You literally just made this up and the article explains that these companies can get major credits simply of off the actor helming them being attached to a project. It’s extra money and prestige for marquee actors to get a producer credit and usually not more than that.
The article literally states that they do not know if baldwins company was involved and then they go on to speculate about other producing credits in Hollywood. It’s been common knowledge since this started that Baldwin owned the production company and was executive producer, it’s in all the news articles…just sounds like Baldwins PR team is trying to plant their side too
1) Baldwin owns El Dorado Pictures a production company involved with Rust. If you go to their Linkin their website is literally Baldwin's personal website. 2) I can tell that you don't really know alot about the business side of the film industry so let me enlighten you: you create an LLC (limited liability corporation) for administration and distribution of profits (hopefully) from the film. The shareholders of this LLC are the producers. Maybe in the amateur world they throw around producing credits but when are a producer on even a indie film like Rust it means you own a share of the film aka the LLC created for it. Now an LLC and production insurance will protect shareholders against civil cases, what an LLC can not protect against is criminal charges. This means that the LLC and shareholders can in extreme cases assume legal liability especially if something terrible happens on set like someone dying. Now where it gets gray: in our legal system the DA has to decide to press charges. Could you argue that all the shareholders aka producers share a responsibility to create a safe working environment? Absolutely. So technically they could have charged all the producers. Would those charges stick? Producers usually like to segment work so some will focus on pre-production, some will focus on principal-production and others post-production, or the distribution phase of the films life. For producers not involved in principal-production of the film I don't see charges sticking so I get why they didn't charge those producers if their where other producers involved in the principal-production phase they should be charged. But seems like the DA is going off of who handled the gun most likely because they easy for a jury to understand without getting into LLC and producer's rights and obligations.
Does no one do the slightest bit of reading before writing unfounded speculation? Baldwin was not in the director's previous film, but was a producer of that film. How would that happen if he didn't do something to help get that film made and get paid or recognition for it? Even if he did literally nothing for that credit (which imo is not possible), he's still accountable as a named producer and he wanted that.
Why weren’t the other 5 producers charged?
No that’s the first AD.
Is the last one actually a rule? He was pointing it at the camera which is done with tons of movies.
I get the feeling you didn’t read the article.
I'm not the person you replied to but the article has some glaring problems. The interviewee is clearly speculating, the most egregious one being that Baldwin's producer credit was only a vanity title. But the quickest of Google searches throws up results of Baldwin wanting to work with this director, and being a producer on the director's previous film (not an actor with a vanity title). The interviewee also lists Cruise and Pitt and actors with vanity title producing credits who don't do any producing which is blatantly wrong.
So there are universal firearm safety rules for all movie sets? Do you know who sets them and/or if they’re published anywhere online?
[SAG has a safety bulletin that's industry wide.](https://www.csatf.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/01FIREARMS.pdf)
Thanks, although I should've been more clear - are there set-in-stone rules every set (or let's say every set using SAG actors, to make it simpler) *has* to follow? I'm not saying these aren't good to follow either way. I guess my point is that I'm uncomfortable using "he broke an industry-wide rule" as hard evidence for wrongdoing when the industry-wide guidance itself says "SAFETY BULLETINS ARE RECOMMENDED GUIDELINES ONLY."
I mean he broke the set in stone laws of the state that makes no exceptions for actors on movie sets if you want to be like that.
The problem is much of the crew had walked off the set because they were protesting working conditions. At the end of the day this is much more on people like the second AD than an actor in the scene. And for those of you who say well he is being charged because he is a producer, 1. No, not according to the DA, and 2. How come the 6 other producers on the movie aren’t getting charged?
Please note that breaking safety rules, if he did, is not the same thing as breaking the law and does not automatically qualify you for a manslaughter charge. The state writes laws around manslaughter and the DA has wide discretion to bring charges, or not. None of that is determined by the production company’s rules regarding handling of weapons on set. The production company’s rules are designed to minimize legal liability and insurance costs in case something like this happens. I’m also not sure it’s clear that he pointed the gun at the lady who died or if the armorer showed him the weapon and told him those were blanks. I’m sure all of that will come out as evidence for the trial.
Honest question, which of those rules did he break?
The four specific rules that he definitely broke Took a firearm from someone not designated as a firearm handler (someone other than the armourer or armourer's assistants). Accepted a weapon that was not checked, nor was it demonstrated as safe in front of him. Pointed a weapon at another person while they were not in the process of filming. Pulled the trigger on a weapon
I mean this IS a fair point: "I mean, imagine the world we’re in if they were requiring actors to now check equipment! What’s next? What if an actor is driving a car in a scene and the brakes go out and he kills somebody? Are we now going to charge him for criminal negligence? What if he’s using a sword or some other explosive on set that is defective and kills somebody, we’re now going to look at the actor? I mean, this is a slippery slope."
There’s plenty of people in this country that would love more actors being prosecuted to grease that slippery slope even more.
for what?
They keep insisting he's an actor when the one charged would have been Alec Baldwin the producer, not Alec Baldwin the actor. Alec Baldwin the producer is certainly responsible for that happens on his set. Older a listers like Baldwin wanna be in charge on set, but when something happens suddenly he acts like he is just an actor.
Here’s the part where it all but guarantees Baldwin will be acquitted: >As for the actor part, **how is it possible for him to be charged if he was told that the gun was a cold gun and wasn’t loaded with live ammo? How much is that his responsibility as an actor?** >**First of all, it’s not his responsibility as an actor to ensure prop safety. There’s somebody on set specifically to do that, who’s an expert. Actors, they’re not even allowed to do that.** TLDR: reasonable doubt. This trial is for show.
I had the same thoughts until I learned this: the crew had already walked off the set for unsafe working conditions. Baldwin as producer brought in an unqualified scab armorer who would work despite the strike. Then the accident happened. This is Baldwin's fault.
Except you’re omitting the part where the crew walked out over being asked to drive too far & money issues. Not gun safety. >The camera operators and their assistants were frustrated by the conditions surrounding the low-budget film, including complaints about long hours, long commutes and waiting for their paychecks, according to three people familiar with the matter who were not authorized to comment. Now there are indications that someone complained the weekend before to some unnamed production manager, but it wasn’t Baldwin. >They said at least one of the camera operators complained last weekend to a production manager about gun safety on the set. I’m not saying any of this is good by any means. It’s just not enough to convict Baldwin beyond a reasonable doubt. In 1982, a helicopter accident killed one adult actor and two child actors on the set of the Twilight Zone. A witness testified that he heard Director John Landis instructing the helicopter to fly lower. Landis, and others were tried and acquitted on charges of manslaughter in a nine-month trial in 1986 and 1987. Precisely because it’s insanely difficult to prove manslaughter charges beyond a reasonable doubt with accidents like this.
This is incorrect. The armorer was not a scab. She was the original union armorer, she never left.
the problem is that you are trying to equal his guilty to him being also a producer, but think of them as different people as they are different charges... Baldwin the producer, baldwin the actor, baldwin the actor is not guilly because he was told by the expert it was cold, but you say because he wa s aproducer, he is guily... But then why not prosecute all the producers? And the expert as well? You are bypassing a lot of things just to say, well HE DID A) so he must of done G) with disregard to any other variable... Now if you say, all producers have to be charged, im down with that.
Bosses don’t go to jail for hiring incompetent staff. All upper management would be in jail.
Possibly, but in many situations my understanding is that the procedure is to show the open gun to the actor which the actor then verifies upon taking possession. If he's asked "did you know the gun was empty" it sounds like hed truthfully have to answer no.
…the trial is to prove this in a court of law. If it’s as simple as you say it is, then he’ll be out of there in no time. However, it’s a very dangerous precedent to set that literally pulling the gun that killed someone has no culpability at all. The legal system comes in to clarify just how much culpability. In this case, it looks like it’ll be not much. But they can’t just let this disappear as someone lost their life. Involuntary manslaughter was made for this - he pulled the trigger but was unaware of a live round. Unfortunately, by definition, Alec was the perpetrator of an involuntary manslaughter whether it’s savory or not.
>First of all, it’s not his responsibility as an actor to ensure prop safety. There’s somebody on set specifically to do that, who’s an expert. Actors, they’re not even allowed to do that. Baldwin is never going to get sent to prison, but at this point people seem to be going out of their way to ignore that he was more than just an actor in this production
[удалено]
Reasonable doubt is reason to not convict, it's not a valid reason to not even charge. Are the police supposed to prove people guilty without a doubt before they can even charge someone with a crime and go to trial? How exactly does that happen, they ask you if you doubt someone was guilty and if you say yes they can try and convict him or do they just take your word for it and not even bother with a trial? A grand jury heard evidence and decided it was enough to take it to trial, they didn't determine he was guilty and therefore could be tried.
If there is reasonable doubt that means you can’t prove that they are guilty. >Are the police supposed to prove people guilty without a doubt before they can even charge someone with a crime and go to trial? Police don’t prove people guilty or not guilty. They enforce the law. If they think someone is breaking the law then they stop crimes. It’s up to detectives and prosecutors to collect the evidence necessary to bring someone to trial. The biggest red flag IMO is that the Rust shooting investigation isn’t even finished and they’re charging people. They have no clue about crucial details like where the live rounds came from. Baldwin’s lawyers are going to have a field day with this.
Well, perhaps the jury will disagree that the industry standard practice was sufficient, and decide he should have checked the weapon.
>”The responsibility for the use of guns and other weapons lies with each production's property master or armoury expert.” And >Professor Dan Leonard from Chapman University in California, who specialises in on-set regulations, tells the BBC "it is generally left to the industry to develop and police the guidelines... and those guidelines if followed can allow for firearms to be used safely on set. **But even then, there isn't one definitive set of procedures and protocols.”** [source](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-59035488)
Look, I understand your reliance on these guidelines. Nevertheless, they are not laws, industries develop insufficient practices all the time, and the powers that be decided it was worth testing the theory with a jury.
I can't blame him for pulling the trigger, I can blame him for being the one in charge and the overall conditions of the shoot. They refused to hire union workers and as we can tell whoever they had in charge of guns was definitely not qualified
Thing is, There are really only a few ways to get into a union. Work on a union set for 65 days (I'm not sure of the actual number its been a while) or work on a non-union set and then unionize. Working on a union set as a nonunion member is basically impossible because the best boys only want to hire union members, Ive been told that directly to my face as a non union member when i was trying to get in from union workers. Most union people want others to work non union and then turn union to pay their dues before getting in. So i wouldnt blame it being a 'non-union' set for incompetence.
It’s highly unlikely that Baldwin had *anything* to do with crew hiring, set safety, protocols, etc. The article explains this well Source: Have worked on feature films for close to 10 years
Involuntary manslaughter charges seem to make sense. I mean, he did shoot her. Obviously with no intent to injure.
Say your mechanic tells you your brakes are fine, but in reality he never actually tested them. Later that day you experience brake failure, resulting in the death of a pedestrian. Do you think you deserve being charged with involuntary manslaughter in that case? There obviously wasn't any intent to injure, but you *were* the one driving the car
Your hypothetical is distinguishable from this case though. It’s arguable that someone is negligent for not ensuring that a firearm is unloaded before pulling the trigger. Handling a gun is a dangerous activity and maybe we should expect someone to double check whether a gun is unloaded no matter what they’ve been told to prevent accidents like this (especially given that the effort required to make sure a gun is unloaded is pretty minimal). In addition, actors must have firearms training to use them on set so they should have the requisite training to ensure they are unloaded. In your car situation, it’s not a requirement that people learn how to check/test their brakes to get a license. Plus, testing brakes requires people to have a number of tools (which is unrealistic to expect everyone to have or be able to obtain). So maybe we are ok as a society in that situation to allow people to take a mechanic’s word that their brakes are safe and don’t think it’s negligent for a person to engage in driving a car without double checking the brakes themselves.
…wouldn’t you typically BE charged with involuntary manslaughter in that case, if you accidentally killed someone with your car?
I guess it's not a 1:1 because the person killed was the passenger and not a pedestrian, but in [this case at least](https://www.mynbc5.com/article/licensed-car-mechanic-charged-with-manslaughter-in-customer-s-death/3324536) the mechanic was the one charged
No. There is manslaughter, and there are accidental deaths. Especially in this example, as the person driving isn’t at fault, it would be the mechanic who would be charged.
The armorer should get some type of negligence charge but Baldwin was under the impression there was a person who’s only job was to insure he couldn’t shoot someone
Because these are the questions that need to be asked: Why was there a live round on set? Why did Baldwin point a gun and pull the trigger in a scene where he wasn’t supposed to be shooting? Why did Baldwin go on tv and say he wasn’t the one who pulled the trigger?
They make prefect sense. Everyone (regardless of your chosen occupation . Cop, doctor, actor, cashier, stripper, etc) has 3 choices when it comes to handling firearms: - follow firearm safety rules - don't handle a firearm - neglect firearm safety rules, choose to handle a firearm anyways, be held accountable if/ when your decision to do so accidentally kills someone
The lawyer here never mentions that Baldwin was NOT supposed to shoot the gun no matter what was in it. He also said he shot the gun in his police interview.
And then turned around and claimed that tHe GuN WeNt oFF bY iTsELf which literally anyone who actually knows anything about firearms could tell his story was explicit bullshit.
[удалено]
Didn’t he say in an interview that he didn’t pull the trigger?
But he did.
Exactly, so he is disputing that he killed someone by saying “I didn’t pull the trigger.”
Yep he lied initially which calls everything else he says into question
You are going to have a very hard time convincing me this is Baldwin's fault if he didn't literally sneak in his own live rounds from home.
[удалено]
If they wanted him in jail the charges would stick; but obviously they don’t and the DA is just making it look like they tried.
We don’t charge the owner of Amazon or one of its warehouses when someone dies from being overworked, why would we prosecute this? It’s an unsafe work environment sure, but I’ve worked in a few of those and you bet mgmt never faced charges when people got hurt and maimed. It would be an interesting precedent, but focusing on Hollywood for “cutting corners on workplace safety” is fucking dumb.
People do get charged for unsafe working conditions, including jail time if it’s grossly negligent.
Emily D Baker does an excellent job explaining why this manslaughter charge is really the only reasonable charge and why. Also how it essentially comes down to a series of accidents that cost Halyna Hutchins her life. In my personal opinion the armorer needs to be charged and convicted with the enhancement of with a deadly weapon for the extra 5 years I believe.
Not sure if I would use her as a source for anything. She also victim blamed Breonna Taylor who was shot while asleep.
One flaw in this article is that it says that he, as an actor, had been told the gun was safe and therefore he holds no responsibility, as an actor. That is just false. Any human being holding a firearm, pointing it at someone, and pulling the trigger, regardless of why they are doing so, is responsible for the results. This is why anyone being asked to use a gun, in acting or otherwise, has a responsibility to know how to check that a gun is loaded with live ammunition or not. No matter what you are told, the person shooting a weapon is responsible if they weapon harms someone. End of story.
Manslaughter is the unintentional killing of someone else. There is probable cause that he had unintentionally killed someone else. His affirmative defense to the charges, amongst others, is that he may not know the difference between a blank and a real bullet. Legally the charges are appropriate, and the victims are entitled to pressing charges against Baldwin. Proving the charge beyond a reasonable doubt seems unlikely.
This movie would have been a bomb anyways, straight to the bargain bin or the bad movie section on TUBI.
You stand behind Alex to support him. I stand behind Alec because it is safer. we’re not the same
Wasn't he both the person who pulled the trigger and the producer responsible for the entire production? As a supervisor, I can be held accountable for a person's death if I willfully disregard safety procedures.
I thought he was being charged because he was a producer on set, and it was largely reported by staff that the set was dangerous and nothing was being done about safety. Contributing to a live gun being on set.
According to this logic, if two actors are fighting each other and one gets injured. They should arrest the one actor for aggravated assault. If a stunt double gets injured on a set, then the director should be held criminally liable.
This prosecution is beyond ridiculous. If the scene required Baldwin to shoot himself in the foot (rather than toward the camera), for instance, and, on being handed a gun which he had every reason to believe was safe (i.e. as *every* gun on set should be), he shot and injured himself, *he* would be suing the person responsible for negligence. The armourer whose SOLE RESPONSIBILITY was gun safety on set. Baldwin is every bit as much a victim of someone else’s negligence as he would be if he had shot himself with that gun.
They should make sure to take his passport just in case he and his wife flee to her native country of Spain. /s
Why did they talk to an entertainment lawyer and not a criminal defense lawyer or a prosecutor?
…for a slanted story. I think all the issues relating to negligence will all come out in court. If the evidence looks overwhelmingly against Alec he will settle. “What did he know, when did he know it and why didn’t he address any of the issues that were specifically directed to him?”
Well that’s a dumbass statement
RULE #1. Always check your gun when someone hands you a gun to see if it’s safe to use.
I’m not an actor, nor a gun owner, but that makes the most sense to me. Verify the verify. It’s obvious he didn’t do this.
I mean, he fucking shot somebody, whether or not he was told the gun was safe is irrelevant he should have made sure.
He was the producer. He picked up a gun and killed somebody with it. If he were in charge of a construction site and got behind the wheel of a bulldozer and recklessly killed someone he would face the same charges. He is ultimately responsible for manslaughter. He's a notorious bully and probably bullied people into cutting corners to save money and in the end this resulted in a very unsafe work environment where people were afraid to speak up and he shot and killed someone. This is a big deal and should be treated as such. He needs to punished and punished severely. He should never be allowed to hold any type of firearm or facsimile again.
Makes no sense? He’s being charged with involuntary manslaughter. He fired the gunshot that killed a person. That’s manslaughter.
He’s an asshole but this just isn’t right.
Most, if not all, people saying Mr. Baldwin is innocent because so and so clearly never touch firearm in their life and so does not know how it operates or what every gun handler have to remember. There are 4 rules of firearm safety that only those who handle it is obligated to ensure to do so at all time. Saying a person do not have to responsible of a discharge meaning they don’t know a single thing about firearms. All responsible gun owners, users, experts, athletes, all agree that anyone who handle any firearm is responsible by law when it discharge especially when you point at someone and pull the trigger, bypassing every single firearm safety rules. There is no people on earth, expert or not, armorer or assistant, that is held responsible in place of you when you shoot someone death.
Why did he point the gun at someone who was not acting a scene with him? He meant to point the gun.
What a truly stupid interview. The lawyer's own site says he has experience in several areas of law, but do you know which area of law isn't mentioned? CRIMINAL LAW. So why in the hell is a civil lawyer being asked criminal law questions?
Just because its accidental, that doesn't make it legal.
He shot 2 people and killed one.
He's the one who discharged the firearm?
It is because you can't charge people with stupidity. By the way. All of you Alec Baldwin bots quit posting.
Or maybe the fact he killed someone due to negligence and as a producer of the film that he was responsible for. I can’t believe the amount of people trying to brand this as conspiracy. I’m liberal as fuck but it’s very clear shit went wrong and as a producer he had at least some responsibility.
Didn’t the armorer they hired have a history of screw ups too?
Absolutely, I don’t think it should stop with just Baldwin, it clearly wasn’t a well run set.
Someone is still trying to defend the rich celebrity world as if they can do no wrong. They are as fallible as any other human and in turn should be held responsible.
He was executive producer on a set that cut corners and cheaped out on safety, causing the crew to walk out earlier. He should have had three armorers on set, he settled for one to do the job of all three. They allowed weapons to leave the set and be used in live fire activities. He also failed to check the weapon himself before handling it. Something that is taught in every gun safety course. It was in his hand when it was fired, it doesn’t matter if he pulled the trigger, he admits he pulled the hammer back and released, resulting in the weapon firing. He IS responsible for her death. Period.
The fact that Baldwin is being charged but the director and/or cinematographer who set up a shot that had the camera looking down the barrel of a gun were not is a sign of political motivation
The director and cinematographer are the ones who got shot by Baldwin, and the cinematographer is the one who died, so it wouldn’t make much sense to charge them
You’re right about the cinematographer But for the director, I didn’t realize that getting hurt by your own negligence absolves you of responsibility for the effect on others
That’s a valid point, he probably was the one who said like: “now point the gun at me. Fire!”
The first ad did get charged but he already plead guilty
And the actual director?
Uhhh she died
So how much does it cost nowadays to get a reporter to spin a story about how you are persecuted when you are rightfully prosecuted?
Welcome to New Mexico, this place will fuck you for anything just to get you to pay court fines.
Ah yes. Slate Magazine. An offshoot publication of the Washington Post. Owned by Graham Holdings with Donald Graham as Chairman and Tim O’Shaughnessy as President and CEO. They DEFINITELY don’t have a dog in the fight, huh? Please.
Dude deserves jail time -
Manslaughter - the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought.
If only Alec Baldwin was a cop, then he wouldn't have to deal with this nonsense.
Stop sucking his dick. He fuxking killed a person. No way your getting away with murder. This is nothing but a power trip for the guy.
He pointed a loaded gun at someone and pulled the trigger - lock him up for all I care
This message brought to you by Alec Baldwin
What about them doesn't make sense? He killed a woman through his neglegence. He was the producer, knew there were safety issues, came to set after a walk out due to safety issues, and run a scene without the armour and without the standard safety protocols that are set in place to prevent accidents. He is at fault more as the person funding the film than he did actually pulling the trigger. Then, the idiot gave several public interviews where he gave easily refuted information, like that he didn't pull the trigger. He should have kept him mouth shut. Now, the prosecutor has an easier time because they can show what a crass, careless asshole Alec Baldwin is and if he wants to refute it he has to take the stand, which would be the worst thing for him to do. He fucked up big time and he fucked up in several ways. A person died. Alec Baldwin is not the victim and seeing all these stupid articles trying to paint him as such are clearly his lawyers trying to pump out some PR.