-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Videos show Alec Baldwin was ‘reckless’ with guns, ‘Rust’ prosecutors say
- Thread starter ma smith
- Start date
FAB
Coward, pussy, SNL faggot; blames everyone else including an innocent woman when he kills and wounds two people.
Coward, pussy, SNL faggot; blames everyone else including an innocent woman when he kills and wounds two people.
Perhaps a contrary opinion on this particular topic- but if I'm being fair, and putting whatever opinions I may or may not have to the side on the actor himself- I can't say that I can fault an actor in this particular angle of being willy nilly with what they perceived as a prop gun after decades of handling prop guns and expecting their corporate conglomerate to hire the right people to not hand them loaded guns, especially given their history of playing in movies where firearms were a central part of the plot.
I don't like hypocrites as much as the next guy here but if we're being fair- look at fabled gun writers of the past and their trigger disciple and compared to what we accept today in 2024. It doesn't matter what I personally think of the guy, his politics, whatever. He was handed what he believed was a prop gun and that proved to be inaccurate. Given what I know of the story- if I was on the jury, as of today, I'd have to vote him innocent on this one.
Now if there was a civil trial- well this opens a whole can of worms (not even directed towards Alec Baldwin) but grievous mistakes were made, and somebody should be held liable (and I don't necessarily know if I believe the color changing armor is to blame for it either). In any event- lives were lost and somebody is going to be held accountable- likely one of the production company in my mind...
-LD
I don't like hypocrites as much as the next guy here but if we're being fair- look at fabled gun writers of the past and their trigger disciple and compared to what we accept today in 2024. It doesn't matter what I personally think of the guy, his politics, whatever. He was handed what he believed was a prop gun and that proved to be inaccurate. Given what I know of the story- if I was on the jury, as of today, I'd have to vote him innocent on this one.
Now if there was a civil trial- well this opens a whole can of worms (not even directed towards Alec Baldwin) but grievous mistakes were made, and somebody should be held liable (and I don't necessarily know if I believe the color changing armor is to blame for it either). In any event- lives were lost and somebody is going to be held accountable- likely one of the production company in my mind...
-LD
It was not a "prop" gun that is a totally false description. It is a real firearm with blanks in it supposedly verified by an armorer. There was live ammo on the set that they were target shooting with. Lots of protocols were broken and someone is now dead.
I don't disagree with you- but how is that Alec Baldwin's fault. After decades of playing movie roles, and his public comments, is it really fair to assume he knows anything about firearms other then how to make it 'look good' on film?
-LD
AB was also the producer, and responsible for vetting and hiring the armorer - the buck stops at his front door.
TLDR -- Would recommend you read the article. Its well understood by everyone involved these are standard firearms. And the actors are required to take standard firearm safety classes. The story discusses Balwin's "unprofessional" behaviour during the firearm safety classes...
I did see that as well... but (I didn't fact check this statement myself full disclosure) I'm sure that he set himself up as a corporation well before being a producer and I'd suspect that gives him quite a bit of deniability since corporations are people legally.
I'm not defending AB, and I'm not defending the armorer (although I did notice that their appearance/style preference changed) but mistakes were made, lives were lost. Just feel like we've got pitchforks in hands trying to place the blame on a single person but the juice is likely more worth the squeeze for all those impacted by this particular event going after the corporation first and foremost. Win there, then use it against whoever the general public sees fit and use the previous trial to their advantage in seeking justice.
-LD
@LuckyDuck .... A guilty decision on the manslaughter charge doesn't require culpability or intent. If it wasn't for the possibility of emotionally swaying a jury to the proposed line of thought in Post #6 and misapplying the law, it would be really simple. Moving backwards in time... somebody died of a gunshot wound, who sent the bullet? The most proximate cause of the bullet is the trigger puller. I think it's more of a stretch that the armorer was convicted.
Last edited:
Tell me you don't shoot without telling me you don't shoot.
Tell me you don't know law or gross negligence.
Still going with half decent chat bot.
The lady who died was not just a random worker living out her life as a generic serf. Her death dramatically impacted things that could have been very negative for “important people”. I don’t believe in coincidences.
A typical smug, narcissistic adult baby with no concept of consequences. The smug, "you can't touch me" grin that was often on his face during interviews after he killed Halyna Hutchins was one of the most disgusting things ever to be seen on live TV. The majority of people watching were probably itching to punch that grin right off his face with a solid haymaker. If he had lower mental faculties, with a physique more resembling a gremlin, and no commercial connections, he would have just been another lolcow like Cyraxx (Chance Wilkins), howling, flailing, making empty threats in front of a webcam while constantly being tormented by online trolls drawn to that very kind of hilarious behavior.
You need to understand that there are on-set industry protocols for a reason. There are RULES that all actors and people on set must follow with regard to firearms and PROP firearms. When someone hands you a firearm or prop firearm or fake firearm or real firearm anywhere near a filming production, the person handing you the firearm MUST verify to the receiver that the firearm is either real or a prop and that it is loaded or unloaded and with what type of ammo (real or blank). This verification process is both verbal and physical/demonstration. And then the receiver MUST verify again for themselves so the other parties present are aware. And this process MUST be repeated each and every time the firearm/prop changes hands. If an actor puts his prop firearm down on a table and picks it up 5 minutes later, this process MUST still be repeated.
None of this was done. Live ammo was used by accident. Baldwin pointed a live firearm at someone (which should also never happen on set) and pulled the triger. Baldwin is liable, as are the other parties involved.
It is the same with fireworks. These things are no joking matter. There is a reason why even amateur backyard pyrotechnicians putting on July 4th shows for their neighborhood will NOT allow anyone to even approach the vicinity when they and their trusted helpers are setting up aerial cakes and mortar tubes. Because you WILL get more than one clueless idiot who will try to peer down one of the mortar tubes and give everybody a heart attack. There have been horrific accidents where people have been beheaded by a mortar going off while they were trying to relight a fizzled out length of quickmatch. Boom. Gone. A lot of people simply do not know how much power even that small lift charge at the base of an aerial shell has when confined in that tube, and just how fast quickmatch burns.
But but Alec Baldwin didn't pull the trigger. Thats what people don't understand. That gun pulled it's own trigger or someone else pulled it.
All he knows is he didn't fire the gun after he cocked and pointed it.
In the end, the statement I put in bold is the key. Regardless of everything else that went wrong in the accident chain, everyone else whose actions may have contributed, none of it would have killed anyone if this last simple, steadfast rule had not been broken, and it falls squarely on AB and no one else. This is the thing that makes him guilty. The article seems to document that he's done it before, too. He has a well-earned reputation of being a belligerent bully for many years. I seem to remember when this first happened it was reported he had been in an argument with the deceased? If that's true, I could totally see him intentionally pointing the gun at her and pulling the trigger as an act of intimidation. There's no doubt from his past actions he's a big enough hothead to do it.
This isn't meant as a poke at you but here is how I look at it...
A movie set and having an armorer or not on it....
The person picking up that gun even if it was a prop gun which it wasn't.... that person with said firearm should've opened the loading gate/action and he should've checked and confirmed what was in it. If it had live ammo he would've seen it right off the bat (I'm assuming the blanks are crimped blanks or have a cardboard in the end etc...) and questioned it and stopped everything and have the armorer confirm it before going any further.
Like the saying goes, "you can break one rule of gun safety and get lucky and get away with it but break two rules of gun safety and usually an accident/something bad happens!" Break all three rules and then for sure.
I also will say this... even if your a movie star on set and if you've never had a training class on how to handle firearms at all.... then they should be forced to take a firearms training class. Period. I don't care who you are.
It is sad but it cracked me up on some of his interviews when he said..."I didn't pull the trigger... it went off by itself type garbage.... sorry but the gun didn't pull the trigger on it's own.
He in the end is responsible and should be held negligent for the use of the firearm. Even if the armorer made a the horrific mistake of loading live rounds in the gun... he should've still opened it and checked it himself before using it in anyway shape or form.
That 24 yr. old armorer should have never been drug into this case, much less taking the fall for AB.
Every day she spends behind bars until her release should be tacked onto his sentence.
When you break down the differing opinions being discussed above about AB’s negligence, it comes down to one basic thing; either you value a society where people are responsible for their actions and held responsible as such, or you don’t and you value blaming everyone and everything you can for what should be your responsibility. I’m happy to see there are very few people in the second camp on this website as I don’t think those in the second camp should be around nor have access to firearms; ever.
I find it odd that AB is only looking at a possible 18 month prison sentence for his negligent actions while there are multiple people serving much larger prison sentences after negligently running over and killing pedestrians or bicyclists while texting and driving. To me it’s the same thing. You had control over a deadly object, you acted negligently and your reckless behavior got someone killed. My hope is he serves the maximum sentence and the wrongful death attorneys clean him out financially.
I find it odd that AB is only looking at a possible 18 month prison sentence for his negligent actions while there are multiple people serving much larger prison sentences after negligently running over and killing pedestrians or bicyclists while texting and driving. To me it’s the same thing. You had control over a deadly object, you acted negligently and your reckless behavior got someone killed. My hope is he serves the maximum sentence and the wrongful death attorneys clean him out financially.
I give 2 shits about any of them. But from what I've read there were serious protocols broken. Like mirrors being used to film when they point a gun at the camera. Live Ammunition on set. Not verifying a gun was unloaded. Etc.
Now not only did AB break some major rules to kill that girl, but he is also negligent for hiring the armorer in the first place. So he would be just as guilty if another member of the cast aimed the gun and pulled the trigger.
Now not only did AB break some major rules to kill that girl, but he is also negligent for hiring the armorer in the first place. So he would be just as guilty if another member of the cast aimed the gun and pulled the trigger.
Frank,
No offense was taken here and you're certainly welcome to your opinion and I appreciate the discussion. If anything else- I likely agree with everything you stated (for what it's worth) and it was received it as a polite and constructive response.
I suspect the issue is on my end and that I didn't explain my position clearly enough and that's on me, not anyone else. So I'll try again, not with the intention to sway anyone's opinion but instead to provide some more clarity on how I see the matter unfolding (and I'm ok with being wrong, it is after all just one opinion and likely not aligned with the majority here, and that's ok with me). To be clear, I'm NOT defending AB, I'm also NOT saying negligence didn't exist or wasn't largely a contributing factor of what happened. I'm also NOT saying AB is a 'swell' guy worthy of our sympathies for what happened. Rather, my opinion is based on the following clarification...
I suspect, on the criminal proceedings at least (regarding the manslaughter charges), AB's defense will make it clear that the actors' are not firearm specialists, never have been and a gun is nothing more than any other prop to them. They'll likely provide evidence supporting this within the lens of 'industry standards' and hiring a specialist to worry about those things and there not being any standing precedent where actors are held to any liability for 'clearing' props that could potentially incorporate grave harm and/or death to the staff. I wouldn't at all be surprised to learn that there's a section in the contract that absolves the movie producers from liabilities in such circumstances. They'll likely also point to the myriad of movies AB has made using firearms as as a prop with the same... discretion I'll say, without any issue. And with regards to the preponderance of evidence required in a legal proceeding for a guilty verdict, I really do think that the defense's arguments using that as an opinion would have some merit from that perspective and have a significant weight on the outcomes of the proceedings.
With that said- lives were lost and real tragedies were incurred, and someone has to pay the proverbial 'piper' and I think that will happen on the civil side of things. How I see that playing out though, is not in the criminal court but more likely in the civil court where the legal thresholds are lower. I haven't been watching the case with tremendous attention/scrutiny, but if I recall right, the armorer responsible for the safety procedures was found guilty (and also adopted a more 'conservative' hairstyle throughout the process) and I think that's going to be the only scapegoat convicted in criminal courts. On the civil side of the law, I do think as being part as a producer of the film, the courts will rule that negligence existed from that side (for hiring an incompetent/unqualified armorer if nothing else) and they will be liable for a monetary ruling to the surviving members of the folks impacted and that will likely be paid out by the insurance company rather than from AB's personal bank account. Again, I just call it as I see it and that's my prediction in this whole matter, I'm more than fine being wrong but I'm pretty sure AB is able to afford the best lawyers and ensure this is the outcome when it all gets played out.
As I previously mentioned, I have no disagreement with your position but the SH audience is a bit unique with some elements with this case with our understanding of firearms, firearm safety, etc and I don't think AB will be held to the same standard although "our" understanding of what went wrong is likely influenced by this knowledge but I doubt it'll reach the reasonable man legal standard as being applicable to the negligence argument for criminal manslaughter with the jury. Put another way- many of us are of the same 'mindset' and thus responses here will likely resemble an echo chamber. Neither right or wrong of course- just calling it as I see it is all.
I'm NOT suggesting that what AB did was right, I'm NOT saying that mistakes weren't made, I'm NOT excusing this as 'just one of those things'. But I really don't see this concluding with a guilty charge for manslaughter based off of those observations. The only precedence I can personally think of that directly applies to this case is what happened to Brandon Lee during the filming of "The Crow". Admittedly, I didn't take the time to research the entirety of the case but from what I remember of it at least, there was a big investigation, they figured out it was a lodged bullet in the barrel that was 'set off' from the blanks etc, but I don't believe any of the actors that were involved with BL were held to manslaughter charges (and I'm fairly certain that'll come up too as a legal precedent).
Apologies for getting long winded but hopefully that clarified where my previous opinions were coming from. Appreciate your opinions regardless.
-LD
Last edited:
AB's defense might make that claim. However, that claim is unsound because that's not how it actually works on a proper union set like the one in question. Actors are specifically trained, coached, and overseen by the armorer and any other related persons involved in production. If a firearm is used, even if it's just a prop and not a functioning arm, everybody involved is supervised and trained in how to act and handle said arm/prop. How do I know this? I've done it.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO TOUCHES A PROP FIREARM AND/OR A REAL FIREARM ON SET MUST FOLLOW PROPER PROCEDURE.
That procedure is known. It's not a secret. It's not obscure. And anybody holding said firearm/prop is INDIVIDUALLY responsible for it (along with the other appropriate persons like the armorer, trainers, producers, etc.).
WRONG!
Anybody who touches a firearm on set is individually liable for it and themselves. Proper industry procedure is YOU MUST clear said firearm/prop any time you pick it up, any time someone hands it to you, any time you hand it to someone else, etc. The procedure involves redundancies for a reason. I pick it up, I clear/check it. You watch me. I hand it to you. You clear/check it. I watch you do it. And so on... Each and every time. Not only that, but you never actually point it at someone. Any time you watch a movie and it looks like somoene is fireing a (prop) firearm at someone, it's a camera trick. Including pointing/firing directly at the camera. That can put the cameraman and director and anybody standing near the camera in danger. So they use mirrors and other tricks.
The fact that AB shot somoene standing behind the camera means the firearm was pointed directly at them and he pulled the trigger WITH LIVE AMMO, which should never be anywhere near a set. Multiple redundant safety procedures were ignored. Multiple people were negligent, including AB. If he had done a proper check of the firearm and ammo prior to picking it up, this never would have happened. He was either negligent in checking the ammo/gun OR he did it with malice. Either way, he's absolutely liable.
I was involved in the making of this commercial for Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Siege. Guess how many people got shot? Zero.
Last edited:
I hope the prosecutor shoots down the "actors are mental midgets that don't know anything about guns and they're all just props" defense..
AB is a grown man and is not exempt from the "Treat every gun as if it were loaded" rule.
AB is a grown man and is not exempt from the "Treat every gun as if it were loaded" rule.
Last edited:
No meme's this time- if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. I'm ok with that. The discussion has been good/interesting but it's all speculative at this point too. My ego won't be bruised in the slightest if I'm way off either, just offering a contrary opinion is all.
-LD
Interesting discussions concerning this situation . . . but . . . nobody ever states the obvious.
If orange tips are required on toy guns so everybody knows they aren't real, why did this gun not have an orange tip?
You know, just like the rest of us are required to have.
If orange tips are required on toy guns so everybody knows they aren't real, why did this gun not have an orange tip?
You know, just like the rest of us are required to have.
Probably because we aren't talking about toy guns for 6-year-old kids sold in a toy store. Those are required to have orange tips. But real guns (like the kind used on film sets), prop guns (like ones that are made of rubber), real firearms loaded with blanks, airsoft, bb guns, pellet guns, paintball guns, and so on... those do not require an orange tip. But are you really advocating that all movie guns have orange tips? Imagine watching Saving Private Ryan and everybody from German soldiers to US Army infantry running around with orange-tipped guns lol.
The firearm used in this incident was not a prop. It was a real firearm that was supposed to have been loaded with blanks (or not loaded at all). The issue is someone brought live ammo onto the set (people were target shooting in their spare time) and they mixed up the live ammo with the blanks. And a bunch of people all down the line failed to properly clear the firearm by the time it got to AB's hands. And then HE failed to properly check it. And then HE pointed it at someone. And then HE pulled the trigger.
I think that was probably a rhetorical question. Nevertheless, I agree with you completely. And, as I said before (and you would be more aware than me), if the industry standard is that you NEVER point and fire a gun on set at another person, then THIS is the point where he’s guilty beyond shadow of a doubt, any motives aside, and any other previous failures of protocol aside. Failing to clear the gun could be a mistake, but pointing and firing is INTENTIONAL. If it’s true that he had an argument with her, my personal opinion is that he pointed it at her on purpose to intimidate her. The new evidence suggests he’s done it before, and it fits his well-documented hot temper and narcissism. He’s not a murderer (as far as we know), but he’s definitely guilty of manslaughter for breaking protocol and aiming/firing the gun directly at her when that is forbidden. As an aside, with all the money spent on film making, how much could it cost to make an authentic Peacemaker replica incapable of firing a live round?? (No orange tip required
)
Not meant to be a challenge- just an honest question,
Are you (or have you been) employed in that industry? Just a question is all- if you are/have been, don't suppose you have any good stories to share? My 2nd cousin used to work in that business and left it because of all the reasons Harvey Weinstein's case that came out and she believed that.. "rot" I'll say infected most of the industry.
Again, just an honest question, not by any means 'calling you out' just curious of your insight is all.
-LD
Typical Hollywood manbitch, the type of trash that tried to stay relevant by mocking Pres. Trump on SNL, a show he's too old for; takes a real gun that was just used to shoot real bullets, and points it at people and negligently shoots them.
I bet he whould be a real blast on the range I shot on here in Texas, acting like a Hollywood prick, using his gun as a pointer and threatening people until someone shot him or at least yanked his gun away and pistol whipped him with it.
I bet he whould be a real blast on the range I shot on here in Texas, acting like a Hollywood prick, using his gun as a pointer and threatening people until someone shot him or at least yanked his gun away and pistol whipped him with it.
Soon after the shooting, the family of the deceased stated that there would not be a civil suit. Then there was. Alec Baldwin "settled" that civil suit back in Oct 2022. AB did not make the agreed-upon payments and the suit has been reopened.
Certainly the defence will bring up the culpability argument ... "not AB's fault. trigger wasn't pulled, armorer was already convicted" etc. because that's all they have.
But involuntary manslaugher doesn't require proving culpability. Only a finding of fact. "Who fired the gun?" "the gun was incapable of being fired w/o pulling the trigger. AB held the gun when it went off. The end. Involuntary manslaughter is only a 4th degree felony (like armed trespass) and the statutory maximum penalty is only 18 months in prison and $5000 because it doesn't require proving intent or responsibility for safety.
If the prosecutor thought they could prove some level of intent, then the charge would be murder-1 or -2 or voluntary manslaughter and the penalty would range from 6 years and $5000 up to life in prison.
The only way he gets aquitted is if the Jury doesn't follow the law (whether or not they're properly instructed by the judge.)
Certainly the defence will bring up the culpability argument ... "not AB's fault. trigger wasn't pulled, armorer was already convicted" etc. because that's all they have.
But involuntary manslaugher doesn't require proving culpability. Only a finding of fact. "Who fired the gun?" "the gun was incapable of being fired w/o pulling the trigger. AB held the gun when it went off. The end. Involuntary manslaughter is only a 4th degree felony (like armed trespass) and the statutory maximum penalty is only 18 months in prison and $5000 because it doesn't require proving intent or responsibility for safety.
If the prosecutor thought they could prove some level of intent, then the charge would be murder-1 or -2 or voluntary manslaughter and the penalty would range from 6 years and $5000 up to life in prison.
The only way he gets aquitted is if the Jury doesn't follow the law (whether or not they're properly instructed by the judge.)
Yeah, it was some 24 yr. old airhead's fault for making a loaded firearm available where AB could get his hands on it. I hope she didn't leave any plastic bags out where he could put it on his head and suffocate.
If I were the prosecutor I'd make a fool out of that punk. I'd try and make him cry.
@TexPatriot
AB is the proximate cause, and the armorer is a remote cause.
Kinda like saying "ocean plastics are killing the whales" when you've got this on the front of your boat...
Well, that's not quite what I was trying to indicate (and appologies if I missed the sarcasm font).
AB is the proximate cause, and the armorer is a remote cause.
Kinda like saying "ocean plastics are killing the whales" when you've got this on the front of your boat...
none of it matters now. Prosecutors ruined any chance they had.
Similar threads
- Poll
