The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: TAB on January 19, 2023, 03:29:55 PM
-
involuntary manslaughter
About time. He was clearly at least negligent. My evil side says he did it on purpose, but not sure how you could prove that. Either way it is sad that people lost thier life.
-
How about the assistant director, who took a plea deal? He was the last one to inspect the gun before Baldwin fired it. Could he have put the live rounds in the gun?
-
Reports that he had live ammo on his gun belt. Remember they went shooting with this gun the day before. In the end he still pointed it at some one and pulled the trigger.
-
He damn well should be charged. He violated EVERY gun safety rule in the book. I'm getting sick and tired of people blaming this on the armorer. While she most certainly wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, (and remember HE hired her), that was all the more reason for him to check the weapon, and not deliberately point it at anyone, even after he did.
How hard is it to open a loading gate, and spin a cylinder?
-
It was his finger on the trigger. He should have been charged a long time ago.
-
He sunk himself by talking too much. His own lawyers told him to STFU, and stay away from the press. Instead, he ran straight for them giving interviews.
He lied by saying he never pulled the trigger. Anyone, especially him having appeared in countless westerns, knows you cannot possibly fire a single action revolver unless your finger is not only on the trigger, but depressing it. Thereby allowing the hammer to fall, regardless of what "notch" it is resting in.
-
How about the assistant director, who took a plea deal? He was the last one to inspect the gun before Baldwin fired it.
I think this is what is going to get Hanna, (Thell Reed's daughter, and the armorer), off the hook. She has been charged as well. Regardless of what she did, or didn't do. Or what she should have done, she was NOT the last one to handle that weapon.
It passed through at least 2 other peoples hands after she last touched it, (Dave Hall, and Baldwin himself). And Dave Hall declared the weapon "cold" just before he handed it to Baldwin. (This he himself admitted in police interviews). So regardless of how careful she was or wasn't, she cannot be held responsible for any weapon that continues to be handled by others before it discharges, killing one and wounding another.
Looking at this whole thing in that context, I can't believe he was even offered a plea deal. He is far more "convictable" than she is. Based on the fact of his admission the gun was "cold" when it was not. Why would you declare a weapon as such, without personally inspecting it yourself? If he had, he would have found the live rounds, and this never would have happened.
-
Baldwin's constant ramblings in public and in the media are what is putting him in jeopardy. If he would have taken the advice of his legal team he would have SHUT UP. Had he not blabbed about not pointing and not pulling the trigger, his ability to ignorance concerning firearms would have carried more weight. He best defense was, and still could be, that he knows only what he is told and taught by the expert armorers on the sets. He could put the entire incident back in the responsibility of those feeding him the information.
Now his attorneys not only need to prove his ignorance and reliance on "experts," but also go to the trauma induced skewed information that makes him remember things differently than what actually happened.
-
Looks like Hollywood liberals need a good dose of OSHA like the rest of us get.
Why in the heck do they use guns that can chamber real rounds? Blanks is blanks...they should make it so real rounds cannot be chambered in any way, shape, form, or fashion. Make a fake gun just like the news they create so eagerly.
Restrict live rounds off the set except for LEO's. Guns cannot chamber a round. Heck, make the things look centerfire and take rimfire blanks...whatever.
Nothing has been done to avoid this type of possibility because it would cost Hollywood $$$$'s. Bottom line. They sure don't give a heck about the little guy paying out the nose for dubious benefit, why can't they pay a pittance in their world to protect people? Money grubbers.....
-
Aaaaand they dropped the charges against him. …but some animals are more equal than others.
-
Aaaaand they dropped the charges against him. …but some animals are more equal than others.
I want to see the da re-election fund.
-
His saving grace, for the moment, is Halls admission and plea deal. When Halls testified that he presented the gun to Baldwin and declared it safe Halls assumed all risk. This is due to the standards of assuring safety in these settings.
It is the same as when I am teaching a class. As an instructor I survey the setting and surrounding area. I deem and announce what is a safe direction for firearms to be pointed. If for some reason a firearm is hot and discharges in the safe direction, and a bullet hits someone or something in that direction, I carry the bulk of the responsibility for the accident. The only items the student would be held accountable for is if they knowingly and willfully fired the firearm contrary to my direction.
-
Aaaaand they dropped the charges against him. …but some animals are more equal than others.
Would that make him a pig?
-
The title of this thread should be changed to, "Baldwin NOT CHARGED".
-
I once saw a headline that said someone was charged with battery. I couldn't help but chuckle at that.
-
I once saw a headline that said someone was charged with battery. I couldn't help but chuckle at that.
I've never fully understood that charge. There is, "Battery". Then there is, "Aggravated Battery". Then there is, "Assault & Battery". How can you be charged with, "Battery", without assaulting the person in the process?
-
A lot of this type of "play on words" legal crap can be associated with the liberals, along with the term, "Assault Rifle" that they so love to throw around.
If I shoot you with a single shot, bolt action, youth "Chipmunk" .22, have I not assaulted you?
-
Warning! The joke below is in very poor taste. Do not read it under any circumstances.
30,000 women are battered every day in the United States. And I've been eating mine plain.
You didn't read that, did you? I'll be sitting alone in the corner until further notice.
-
A lot of this type of "play on words" legal crap can be associated with the liberals, along with the term, "Assault Rifle" that they so love to throw around.
If I shoot you with a single shot, bolt action, youth "Chipmunk" .22, have I not assaulted you?
Yep. Any weapon you assault someone with is an assault weapon, right?
-
The sad parts is there was already 2 nd that happened before all this on set. As the executive producer he should have at the very least fired the armorer and did a total safety lock down... where is osha in all this? In my industry most of the deaths are from smaller companies that have been fined before.
Sure looks like this is the same thing minus the fines.
-
The D.A.'s dropped the charges pending further investigation of the crime.They didn't want to rush the trial without all the evidence. He can and probably will be recharged once they are done with their investigation.
-
The D.A.'s dropped the charges pending further investigation of the crime.They didn't want to rush the trial without all the evidence. He can and probably will be recharged once they are done with their investigation.
I surely hope so. I would hate to see this arrogant, loudmouth, P.O.S. walk away from this.
-
And to date the idiot of the family, Stephen still hasn't shot anyone as far as I know. Not Daniel or Billy either. Just Smart Alec.
-
Looks like he's going to be charged again:
https://notthebee.com/article/prosecutor-recharges-alec-baldwin-in-rust-shooting-case-will-be-brought-before-grand-jury-in-november (https://notthebee.com/article/prosecutor-recharges-alec-baldwin-in-rust-shooting-case-will-be-brought-before-grand-jury-in-november)
-
I figure the gun going off without pulling the trigger was something to salve his conscience. And after testing the gun the lab could not make it fire without pulling the trigger...
Looks like he's going to be charged again:
https://notthebee.com/article/prosecutor-recharges-alec-baldwin-in-rust-shooting-case-will-be-brought-before-grand-jury-in-november (https://notthebee.com/article/prosecutor-recharges-alec-baldwin-in-rust-shooting-case-will-be-brought-before-grand-jury-in-november)
-
Set aside all of Baldwin's rambling in interview, and pretend he held to his Right to remain silent. Keep in mind that Baldwin is an anti-gun nut with minimal education and use of firearms. Also remember that this is a movie set where prop firearms are commonly used and the standard rules of firearm safety are modified for theatrical purposes.
The two people I see falling for this are the Armorer, who is responsible for the custody, care and operation of the firearms and ammunition. And Baldwin as producer. As producer he is an employer and responsible for a safe workplace. Baldwin the actor is trusting the direction and information from the "experts" controlling the scene.
Baldwin's fate is not as much about the big picture of a setting where proper experts were or were not involved as it will be about the firearms attitude of a jury and judge.
At this point, with only the evidence we have before us, I would like to see Baldwin the actor acquitted, the armorer and her company convicted, and Baldwin the producer penalized for lack of due diligence in controlling the set. will wait to see how the trial goes, and what the PC slant on everything will be.
-
One problem with that... there had already been 3 NDs on site before this happened. That is 100% on the HNIC. He should have been handling that safety issue. In my industry they would be facing 7 figures in fines from osha. Not just company fines but personal fines.
-
Not only the 3NDs but allegedly they were target shooting on site in their down time.
Live ammo plus guns that will chamber and fire said ammo is STRICTLY VERBOTEN! on any movie set where anyone has a clue. Which in this case was nobody.
The twit “Armorer” (in name only) was obviously brain dead…just like the producer that hired her.
AB.
-
And they STILL keep referring to the gun as a "prop gun". No, it wasn't a PROP gun, it was a REAL gun, capable of firing REAL ammunition, and causing REAL death, REAL personal injury, and REAL property damage. That should be quite evident by now. ::) Get the FACTS straight. Everything else is subject to interpretation, but facts are FACTS. And the fact is that gun was no movie prop.
-
I don't know about the rest of you, but even if I see some one check the chamber, leave the action open and hand it too me... I still double check it.
-
I don't know about the rest of you, but even if I see some one check the chamber, leave the action open and hand it too me... I still double check it.
Always.
-
Same here, always double and triple check.
-
Even the pros, like Massad Ayoob, can overlook a cartridge. Student checked her revolver. He checked the revolver. He pulled the trigger....blam. That's why rules 2 - 4 are there, because no matter what. All Guns Are Always Loaded.
-
I don't know about the rest of you, but even if I see some one check the chamber, leave the action open and hand it too me... I still double check it.
The issue here is that they are on a production set. The standard rules in this setting are that a person is in charge of the firearms, they control them, and they declare them "safe". If anyone, including the actor they are given to does anything to possible change that, opening chambers or removing and replacing magazines, the whole process starts over.
Under the standard rules of the industry, Baldwin the actor followed protocol, and his inexperience with firearms use and safety lead to an injury and a death. Baldwin the producer is in big trouble for hiring and incompetent armor and not controlling that business's firearm control and training standards, but Baldwin the actor's liability will hinge on whether he followed the rules set and prestented to him by the armor.
-
Just charged with involuntary manslaughter
-
Just charged with involuntary manslaughter
As he should be.... He pulled the trigger.
-
[<snip>Under the standard rules of the industry, Baldwin the actor followed protocol, and his inexperience with firearms use and safety lead to an injury and a death. <snip>
[/quote]
Is he inexperienced with real firearms? What level of experience or inexperience does he have with real firearms? I think those are valid questions and that any assumption of his experience needs to be born out by real fact.
He does have 30+ years of experience with Hollywood weapons (see link below) that is inescapable. You would think an armorer somewhere along the line was competent and schooled Baldwin. If Baldwin skipped every safety meeting on the Hollywood weapons he used could that be a red flag for intentional negligence? Surely....surely...he knew not to point a Hollywood gun directly in a person's direction and to cant the barrel so that the camera would think he was pointing directly at a human target while he actually was not pointing an anyone....don't we think he had at least that level of knowledge...how could he escape that normal Hollywood safety practice in over 30 years of films?
https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Alec_Baldwin (https://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Alec_Baldwin)
Guilty as charged?
-
Rastus hit the pertinent points. This is theater. We need to check all of our use and safety expertise at the door of the theater. Not saying that theater doesn't care about safety. There are different procedures that are to be followed to safely depict actions in theater. And YES, in many cases firearm use in theater flies against the common rules of real-world firearm safety.
First, the armorer is guilty in this death and injury. She allowed this to happen under her watch. As far as Baldwin, the facts of how he followed the rules set before him. Did he fully participate in the training and briefings concerning the firearms use on this set. Third, as I recall it was not the armor who actually handed the gun to Baldwin and declared it safe for walk through of the scene. Where will liability fall on this (was it within protocol)? Finaly, Baldwin was a producer in this production. Where will Baldwin's production company fall in the liability for hiring and trusting the armorer.
If I found myself in Baldwin's shoes in this situation I would be sweating heavily. Between the highly charged emotions concerning firearms in our society, and the media and social media running truth and fiction for so long, how do you find an impartial jury?
-
First, the armorer is guilty in this death and injury. She allowed this to happen under her watch.
Not if she wasn't the last one to touch that gun before Baldwin. And from the testimony that I heard, she wasn't. The gun was not only given to him by someone else, but that person declared to Baldwin that the gun was, "cold". (Meaning it was checked and found to be safe). It obviously was not.
And even that does not absolve Baldwin from checking it himself. You don't have to be an expert gun handler to open a loading gate, and spin a cylinder.
-
Not if she wasn't the last one to touch that gun before Baldwin.
Wrong! The armor is 100% responsible for the access and control of the firearms on the set. They are either with them, or they are locked away where only the armor has access. If the armor loses contact with the firearm at any time, they must go through their verification process again before they are put into use. It is a standard that puts full control and verification of the process on the professional, and the actor trusts the process and acts only within the process. One armor even stated in an interview that if the actor opens an action when it is not scripted, they must take the firearm back and go through the process again. It is a step to keep unauthorized operators from having access to the ammunition.
This is a standard that I had learned from a group of theatrical armorers a few years prior to this event. And, it is a standard that was quoted by armorers interviewed in what could have possibly gone wrong in this event.
-
I think there is way more too this than is being told.
Reports of nds, target shooting, Baldwin explaining how he was going to point the gun at some one and it was dangerous.
I can say that there is probably enough blame to go around, but I would not be shocked at all if it was am intentional act by some one
-
Yep. There is more to this than we know....someone is hiding something from somebody to somehow stay out of trouble to avoid someday going somewhere bad or losing something.
-
Looks like sag is defending him... I would really like to know if that's on the up and up or if it's covering one of thier own. I can see both. The last thing sag wants is osha up thier butt.
-
Looks like sag is defending him... I would really like to know if that's on the up and up or if it's covering one of thier own. I can see both. The last thing sag wants is osha up thier butt.
That is an automatic. When you are a member of the union and have a work related charge, the union will evaluate and represent.
-
That is an automatic. When you are a member of the union and have a work related charge, the union will evaluate and represent.
The union I was in decades ago didn't act that way. It would only defend those that were in the right. Granted it was mainly over trade/contract dispute. I saw more than a few shady contractors get violated( kicked out of the union) over asking for help.
-
The union I was in decades ago didn't act that way.
Story out today about the Police union in Atlanta. Two officers trying to apprehend a suspect ended up shooting same. Grand jury dismissed the charges but not before both officers had accumulated 6 figures in legal expenses. The union paid for one but not the other. Second officer is now suing the union.
-
Story out today about the Police union in Atlanta. Two officers trying to apprehend a suspect ended up shooting same. Grand jury dismissed the charges but not before both officers had accumulated 6 figures in legal expenses. The union paid for one but not the other. Second officer is now suing the union.
I do hope there was no race issue between the officers. In today's world That will go over like a lead balloon.
-
I didn't watch this yet but, Shocking Video of Alec Baldwin Firing Guns Before Deadly Shooting Played in Court.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5zKuFqaIXk