Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

dowie said:
I'm not sure you can conclude the case was weak or that he shouldn't have been charged, the mistrial is the result of a disclosure issue re: some ammunition being handed in. But that doesn't imply the case itself was otherwise weak rather they've had to forfeit it regardless of how strong (or weak) it was because they broke disclosure rules (which was in large part the fault of law enforcement too).
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree but from the Judges statement I inferred that there was a weakness in their case which added to her pique.
 
dlockers said:
Ah ok. I am talking about this situation. It is how forums work
Click to expand...
Ah so evading the question which has a direct parallel to this case but yet you answer the question concerning Mary Freemantle which is only loosely related!

Your point is well and truly conceded. If you ever choose to answer it let me know so we can continue.
 
dlockers said:
Whether it was live or blank, why was he pointing and shooting at someone? They weren't filming a scene.
Click to expand...
That's already been explained multiple times.

Director wanted to practice scene which involved gun being pointed to at camera (something that has been done in thousands of films, and god only knows how many TV episodes).
Director wanted to check the camera angles to make sure it looked right and everything was going to be correctly caught on film (including the gun).

Actor complies with director's instruction.

Actor does what is absolutely normal for actor to do as director does what is absolutely for director to do.

Actors and directors don't normally just get on set and start with the cameras running, there are almost always dry runs and rehearsals ranging from literally just the actor and a couple of crew to full on all actors and camera/lighting crew on set.
This really shouldn't be hard to understand, and it's something that is done specifically because it normally both saves considerable sums of money (minimum number of people involved to do the check), but also actually safer than doing it when everyone is there because there are fewer people around if anything does go wrong (when practicing stunts they might do dozens of dry runs with only the stunt crew around).

By your reasoning it would have been fine if the accident had happened under almost identical circumstances as long as the camera had been rolling, and there had been plenty more people on set to be at risk.
dlockers said:
Absolute ignorance on gun safety is required for production? :S What?

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: it is basic workplace safety.
Click to expand...
No.

I never said that. What I said was that Actors and film sets very routinely and explicitly do things that are an absolute "no" for normal circumstances.
They do it because they are under extremely controlled conditions and everyone involved is meant to be professionals with the relevant professional and expert advisors to reduce the risk.

There are a host of jobs where professionals, or people under professional guidance do what are "absolute no no's" for the average person. Half the "routine" stuff on a film set would be a "never do this" for the average person at home.
 
Pretty sure he was only supposed to be drawing the gun in a 'blocking' cameras were not rolling hence no footage, irrespective of that he had it cocked and pulled the trigger, it goes against basic gun safety rules on a range, let alone a movie set with suposide blanks.

The issue was that the prosecution appeared to conspire to conceal evidence (the motive of which is not clear maybe they didnt want the source of the live rounds muddying the water). I still think he was guilty of gross negligence and will be sued into oblivion anyway.

I think there is already talk of the civil settlement between him and the deceased estates likely being reopened due to no compliance with the terms of the agreement.
 
Last edited:
Cold Fusion said:
Pretty sure he was only supposed to be drawing the gun in a 'blocking' cameras were not rolling hence no footage, irrespective of that he had it cocked and pulled the trigger, it goes against basic gun safety rules on a range, let alone a movie set with suposide blanks.

The issue was that the prosecution appeared to conspire to conceal evidence (the motive of which is not clear maybe they didnt want the source of the live rounds muddying the water). I still think he was guilty of gross negligence and will be sued into oblivion anyway.

I think there is already talk of the civil settlement between him and the deceased estates likely being reopened due to no compliance with the terms of the agreement.
Click to expand...

Do you know for an absolute fact that he pulled the trigger? Because he said he didn't!

So unless you have irrefutable evidence to the contrary then your whole point is based on quick sand.
 
dlockers said:
Why you so salty? People can have different opinions you know.
Click to expand...
I would ask you exactly the same thing - but as you haven't answered the two other questions I've asked you on this topic I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.

But if you wish to carry on the discussion rather than resort to ad hominen jibes, then you can answer this question: Do you also say that Michael Massee that was holding the gun that killed Brandon Lee should also have been charged?
 
Last edited:
MartinPrince said:
I would ask you exactly the same thing - but as you haven't answered the two other questions I've asked you on this topic I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer.

But if you wish to carry on the discussion rather than resort to ad hominen jibes, then you can answer this question? Do you also say that Michael Massee that was holding the gun that killed Brandon Lee should also have been charged?
Click to expand...
No because she performed reasonable due diligence.
 
dlockers said:
No because she performed reasonable due diligence.
Click to expand...
Who is she? Michael Massee is a man. :confused:

Maybe you might want to do some actual reading before formulating an answer because even if you mistakenly used "she" instead of "he" it still comes over as something you just made up on the fly as Michael Massee did not perform ANY due diligence, he just fired a gun that was handed to him!
 
Last edited:
MartinPrince said:
Ready to answer the question about Michael Massee and Brandon Lee yet?

Better question. Did Baldwin definitely, categorically, 100% pull the trigger - when he stated that he didn't?
Click to expand...

I believe that's what the prosecution believed and that's what they were going to present in court after testing with the weapon, calling expert witnesses etc.

Sadly we won't get to see that argument tested now (save for maybe in a civil case if not settled in advance) thanks to the disclosure issues.
 
The FBI testing showed that the pistol would not fire without the trigger being pulled over at least 12 attempts. In fact they tested it even more after those initial 12 shots, and the testing so hard physically with it being hit with a felt hammer to force it to fire "accidentally", that the gun eventually broke in two places (both relating to the firing mechanism - which still didn't fail) and yet despite all that it still never fired unless the trigger was pulled.

As Dowie mentioned, because of the idiot prosecutors, all this mass of evidence will be unlikely to ever appear in court.
 
dowie said:
I believe that's what the prosecution believed and that's what they were going to present in court after testing with the weapon, calling expert witnesses etc.

Sadly we won't get to see that argument tested now (save for maybe in a civil case if not settled in advance) thanks to the disclosure issues.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I would have guessed they would have attempted to prove but as it seems that from the Judges ruling they willfully withheld evidence, I would surmise their case was not water tight enough for them to be wholly convinced of its merits.

So much so that Baldwin is threatening to sue, maybe for malicious prosecution.
 
Last edited:
MartinPrince said:
Yes, that's what I would have guessed they would have attempted to prove but as it seems that from the Judges ruling they willfully withheld evidence, I would surmise their case was not water tight enough for them to be wholly convinced of its merits.

So much so that Baldwin is threatening to sue, maybe for malicious prosecution.
Click to expand...
I suspect with the previous thing where the prosecution basically damaged the gun so that it was no longer possible for the defence to have it examined in the condition it was in at the time of the accident* may have played a part in this, as the first time round the judge may have been willing to accept the prosecution's statement that it was not intentional to deny the defence access to what would have been a key part of their case as it was necessary to test it, but when the prosecution are then found to have very deliberately withheld key evidence from the defence it starts to look like a definite pattern.

IIRC the deliberate withholding of evidence by the prosecution on it's own is meant to be enough to jeopardise cases, as it puts everything else the prosecution has done under scrutiny and a half decent lawyer will point that out at every opportunity to the jury.
It's a really stupid thing to do, as good Judges don't like it when either side messes with evidence, and this sort of thing really weakens the case and massively increases the chance of an appeal if there is a guilty verdict.

All I can think is that the either the cops really were stupid, or they had done it in the past and got away with it when faced with people who didn't have good legal representation who could push for all the evidence, and didn't have to worry about a dozen other cases at the same time.



*Apparently the prosecution had an expert whack it repeatedly with a mallet to try and get it to go off as if it had been dropped - Baldwin never claimed to have dropped it. In the process they apparently damaged some of the internals which meant for any further testing replacement parts would have to be fitted, and no one at the FBI's lab thought to examine the internals and document their state before what was going to be potentially destructive testing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom