Isn’t it the state tried to frame the guy thus leading to the collapse of the case
Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set
- Thread starter NVP
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 20 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 75,868
- Location
- Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
It probably said so on the script, he was paid to do what his character was written to do.
Have you never watched a movie where there is a gun?
Associate
- Joined
- 30 Jan 2007
- Posts
- 916
- Location
- West Sussex
According to the prosecutions opening, they were doing a "blocking" where they set up for a shot and see how it works and how it looks before filming.
Apparently the shot was supposed to be him pulling the gun from a chest holster revealing the presence of a gun, didnt call for the hammer to be pulled back, pointed at people and then the trigger pulled.
Its very likely he was criminally neglegent unfortunately people will now have to pursue him civily, which there are a lot, hes gonna need that reality tv show money
Apparently the shot was supposed to be him pulling the gun from a chest holster revealing the presence of a gun, didnt call for the hammer to be pulled back, pointed at people and then the trigger pulled.
Its very likely he was criminally neglegent unfortunately people will now have to pursue him civily, which there are a lot, hes gonna need that reality tv show money
Last edited:
Great job confirming yet again that your judgement is utterly flawed.
He is part of the chain of events that directly led to her death, and in his case it was his action (pulling the trigger whilst the gun was pointed at a member of the production) which was the final link. Up until that trigger pull everything that happened before was just a series of stupid mistakes but were not lethal on their own, but his single action changed that series of mistakes into a fatal one. So yes, he did kill her, but the vast difference was that this wasn't a deliberate choice, it was just the end of a long list of unforgivable mistakes.
Thats why this case against him was so important, because everyone else in the chain has already been tried in a court of law and found guilty, so this was his chance to prove for once and for all that he was innocent. Instead this mistrial hasn't proved that at all as the trial was only stopped because it wasn't "fair" to Baldwin (the right choice) due to the prosecution being stupid, so even now he's still never been given the chance to be found legally Not Guilty.
The prosecution being told they're a useless shower and the criminal charge against you being binned forever is pretty good from his perspective.
Going through a trial to be told you won't be punished is much worse then not having a trial and still not being punished.
We all know he killed her. It's all just legal mumbling over how guilty he should feel about it.
Going through a trial to be told you won't be punished is much worse then not having a trial and still not being punished.
We all know he killed her. It's all just legal mumbling over how guilty he should feel about it.
Great job confirming yet again that your comments are utterly clueless.
Read:
The checks are already there. Even after firing real guns which NEVER get pointed at people checks are done to make sure it's clear. The problem is this team were sloppy.
Disagree. Putting live rounds in a “prop” gun, or rather a gun that you know will be used by an actor to point at, wave around, potentially pull the trigger is a lethal act. Having live rounds within a country mile of a film set using guns is a lethal act. I can ask you to light a candle, but if that candle turns out to be dynamite - are you at fault? There’s plenty of activities where people out their trust and faith in someone else who’s responsibility it is to keep you and others safe. Bungee jumping for example. If you die because you’re not attached correctly, is it your fault/suicide? No, it’s the person who’s job it is to make you safe.
I don’t think Baldwin should take any of the blame legally, at all. It just was not his responsibility, nor why would he even dream of a prop gun being lethally loaded.
The only small good thing about this is that a lot of filmmakers have come out and said that they will never use blanks or rubber bullets on set ever, and the whole thing about guns on set will undoubtedly become safer - not that it should ever be unsafe anyway.
That's a whole other topic. Justice in the US seems to be heavily influenced by who you are and what representation you can afford. Top tip for avoiding death row/life in prison: Don't be a poor black guy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,402
That would be Alec Baldwin still, as executive producer
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,402
Its a management role, he had management responsibility for the whole production and so yes he had some responsibility for all aspects of what was going on on set, so imo it isn't as simple as just saying "an actor shouldn't be expected to know how to handle a gun", he was responsible for ensuring people attended gunsafety sessions, which he himself skipped and then kept claiming he didn't pull the trigger, which he must have.
If his defence was purely "not my responsibility" that would be one thing, but the fact that he claimed he never pulled the trigger is obviously a lie which indicates he knows he messed up more than he's admitting.
Last edited:
I might be wrong but IIRC his executive producer role was partially an honorary one but still. Given the chaos evidenced in the 2 longer videos from the set, claims by people working on the set and other video snippets definitely should be some culpability on the part of those managing the production.
Personally don't think Baldwin should go the jail but definitely believe he could have reasonably done more to prevent the tragedy which occurred and should be held to account for that.
Personally don't think Baldwin should go the jail but definitely believe he could have reasonably done more to prevent the tragedy which occurred and should be held to account for that.
Exectutive Producer can and does mean all sorts of things.
There are a bunch of TV series and films where basically what it means is "this is the big name that resulted in use getting a bunch of funding" or "this is the guy that fleshed out the character he's playing" or even "this is the main named star, and he refused to renew his contract for this season unless he got more recognition so we gave him a title because otherwise we're screwed".
There are vast numbers of "executive producers" who have might only have stepped on set a couple of times in months, or might be credited as executive producer" on dozens of things being made at the same time, it usually means nothing in terms of them being actual management (that would be "producer")
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 12,981
- Location
- La France
Or have the dirt on some powerful people which will be automatically released across the globe if you so much as stub a toe.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,060
What I find astonishing is she only got what, 18 months for what amounts to negligent manslaughter? This is america where they lock you up for life for looking at a police officer the wrong way
If you take your car to a garage for repair and they fail to do the job properly, your brakes fail and you kill an innocent person, YOU are not held responsible for the death.
Just as if you are on a film set, the Armorer fails to do their job properly, you get handed a live gun and you kill an innocent person.
Just because you want to believe he is guilty of a crime, doesn't mean ****. - Except that yet again you're the utterly clueless one.
Last edited:
