Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[ICDP]

How can a prosecution be so conveniently awful when it concerns a famous, rich person from Hollywood?

Hmm...

More to do with Baldwin having enough money to get the very best defence lawyers. Some random unknown would be given a court appointed lawyer and already been locked up.

I believe his claim he didn’t pull the trigger would have been easily disputed. Having said that he would expect the armourer telling him the gun was safe, meant the gun was safe. So even if it had not ended up dismissed, he would most likely have been found not guilty. It is NOT in the actors contract/JD to ensure the guns are safe “cold”.

Are actors responsible for checking guns?


The guidelines do not make it the performer's responsibility to check any firearm. Performers train to perform, and they are not required or expected to be experts on guns or experienced in their use. The industry assigns that responsibility to qualified professionals who oversee their use and handling in every aspect.

To me it seems culpability lies with the “qualified professional”. The fact the prosecution messed up means we will never know. At best Baldwin may have been culpable under some loose responsibility as the executive producer, but that would have been a stretch.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

How can a prosecution be so conveniently awful when it concerns a famous, rich person from Hollywood?

Hmm...

I have a few ideas.

At the very least the armorer who was meant to have inspected that gun should catch time.

 

[StriderX]

I have a few ideas.

At the very least the armorer who was meant to have inspected that gun should catch time.

Well if the same "evidence" that got this trial thrown out permanently was used to get a conviction in hers...

 

[ICDP]

Well if the same "evidence" that got this trial thrown out permanently was used to get a conviction in hers...

Not necessarily. It is her job to ensure that live ammunition does not make it on to the set. It was her job to ensure the guns are checked regularly.

Baldwin had reduced culpability* compared to the armourer.

* I am not arguing he had none at all.

 

[ianh]

*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.

Just to clarify, as per my post above, this additional "mallet" testing was only carried out AFTER the weapon had already been tested by an FBI firearms expert first, including trying to make the gun fire without the trigger being pulled for 12 individual shots, and the expert was unable to make it go off accidentally in normal use with only a trigger pull being able to fire the gun. Then, after being unable to make the gun fire accidentally in normal use, the expert moved on to percussive testing (giving it the best chance of accidentally firing) and so hit it with a mallet repeatedly and it still wouldn't go off without the trigger being pulled whilst being hit and then, even after after hitting it so much the firing mechanism broke in 2 places, making it even more likely to fail and set the gun off, the gun still wouldn't fire without the trigger being pulled.

That is the reason they didn't record the details of the internals, because they couldn't make the internals fail in anyway, even after being broken, however I'd suggest thats still poor evidence collection myself.

By this point occam's razor is pointing very, very heavily into suggesting that Baldwin did actually pull the trigger and it didn't "just go off" but without a court case to hear all the evidence, it's meaningless in the end, except to tjhose killed and injured (2 people were hit) and their families etc.

 

[ICDP]

Just to clarify, as per my post above, this additional "mallet" testing was only carried out AFTER the weapon had already been tested by an FBI firearms expert first, including trying to make the gun fire without the trigger being pulled for 12 individual shots, and the expert was unable to make it go off accidentally in normal use with only a trigger pull being able to fire the gun. Then, after being unable to make the gun fire accidentally in normal use, the expert moved on to percussive testing (giving it the best chance of accidentally firing) and so hit it with a mallet repeatedly and it still wouldn't go off without the trigger being pulled whilst being hit and then, even after after hitting it so much the firing mechanism broke in 2 places, making it even more likely to fail and set the gun off, the gun still wouldn't fire without the trigger being pulled.

That is the reason they didn't record the details of the internals, because they couldn't make the internals fail in anyway, even after being broken, however I'd suggest thats still poor evidence collection myself.

By this point occam's razor is pointing very, very heavily into suggesting that Baldwin did actually pull the trigger and it didn't "just go off" but without a court case to hear all the evidence, it's meaningless in the end, except to tjhose killed and injured (2 people were hit) and their families etc.

The problem is, even if he had pulled the trigger, he did so on the premise the gun was declared safe for him to use. Is there anything that say Baldwin should not have pulled the trigger at all on that set?

My understanding was that the prosecution were charging Baldwin with neglect as an actor. In that he should not have cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger that caused the fatal shot. That seems pretty tenuous at best and their attempt to charge him as a producer was dismissed perviously.

Baldwin did himself no favours with his constant changing of his story. But the prosecution were beyond inept, or just plain biased.

 

[dowie]

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.

No, I think that was more of an admin issue they then stupidly covered up rather than anything particularly significant. But disclosure is a serious issue in court cases and any sort of impropriety like that can mean a mistrial with prejudice so no retrial either.

Baldwin is basically lucky it happened as otherwise it looks like they'd have sufficient evidence to show he'd not only been negligent but he'd subsequently lied about it too.

 

[ICDP]

Baldwin is basically lucky it happened as otherwise it looks like they'd have sufficient evidence to show he'd not only been negligent but he'd subsequently lied about it too.

I would disagree that he would have been found negligent in this case.

In order to prove Baldwin was negligent you have to prove he owned that negligence and a jury already found someone else guilty.

In this case the prosecution case against Baldwin as a co producer was already dismissed. So what they had was that an actor acting as a gunman used a gun that was handed to him by someone who’s job it was to make sure it was safe and who had already been found guilty of negligence.

When you hear it like that the element of doubt is already there.

 

[dlockers]

Not necessarily. It is her job to ensure that live ammunition does not make it on to the set. It was her job to ensure the guns are checked regularly.

Baldwin had reduced culpability* compared to the armourer.

* I am not arguing he had none at all.

He was the production company as well don't forget. His job wasn't just to act.

 

[ICDP]

He was the production company as well don't forget. His job wasn't just to act.

And that aspect was already dismissed. The judge already ruled that criminal charges could only be brought against him in his role as an actor. If we are going on the merits of the case you need to stick with the facts, not feels.

Judge rules Alec Baldwin's co-producer role not relevant in 'Rust' shooting case

A judge ruled Alec Baldwin’s role as co-producer isn’t relevant to the involuntary manslaughter trial over a fatal shooting on the set of “Rust.”

www.pbs.org

Under the prosecutions charges, purely in his capacity as an actor, it would be very difficult to prove Alec Baldwin was culpable for any negligence that someone else was already found guilty of. It basically boiled down to the concept that Alec Baldwin should not have had the gun, unholstered the gun and fired the gun, that was provided to him by someone who was already found guilty of manslaughter.

 

[ICDP]

Why are you all so militant in this thread? I don't agree he should get let off in capacity as actor or production company. It has everything to do with feels, that is what opinions are.

What? Where have you got this from?

I am stating the facts of the actual case as it stood. I am not deciding on his guilt or innocence, but in how likely it would be a jury found the evidence showed culpability beyond reasonable doubt. It is not about feels or opinion, in fact a jury verdict is about ignoring feels and opinions and basing your verdict on FACTS.

An opinion is a belief or judgment that falls short of absolute conviction, certainty, or positive knowledge.

 

[andybird123]

What? Where have you got this from?

I am stating the facts of the actual case as it stood. I am not deciding on his guilt or innocence, but in how likely it would be a jury found the evidence showed culpability beyond reasonable doubt. It is not about feels or opinion, in fact objectivity is about ignoring feels and opinions and basing your verdict on FACTS.

People are allowed to have opinions on things, the judge saying he couldn't be prosecuted as a member of management is exactly that, a judges opinion, even judges opinions are overturned on appeal quite often.

Regardless of whether that was a proper legal decision or not, regular people can still agree or disagree whether it's right or wrong from a moral perspective - and that's exactly how new laws are brought it to cover situations that might happen again in the future.

Prosecutions quite often appeal to people's feelings in order to get their case across too, it isn't just about facts.

 

[dlockers]

What? Where have you got this from?

I am stating the facts of the actual case as it stood.

We have news websites that do that, you're wasting your time.

I am not deciding on his guilt or innocence, but in how likely it would be a jury found the evidence showed culpability.

Jury's make it exactly about feels btw. Otherwise a judge would just apply law based on fact.

 

[ICDP]

lol at the cope on display here. Your opinions do not matter, only the judges.

The prosecution can appeal of course, but good luck with that given their utter incompetence.

Edit: actually the case was dismissed with prejudice and this means there can be no appeal. Basically the prosecution messed up massively.

 

[dlockers]

lol at the cope on display here. Your opinions do not matter, only the judges.

The prosecution can appeal of course, but good luck with that given their utter incompetence.

If you don't have an opinion you are just an RSS feed?

 

[ubersonic]

My understanding was that the prosecution were charging Baldwin with neglect as an actor. In that he should not have cocked the hammer and pulled the trigger that caused the fatal shot.

The big problems with proving their case in this aspect, is that they would have to prove the gun didn't just go off by itself as claimed, which although improbable is definitely possible, and that itself is textbook reasonable doubt.

The prosecution can appeal of course, but good luck with that given their utter incompetence.

IMO the prosecution don't deserver a another chance at this.

They had in their possession a box of ammunition belonging to the person who loaded the gun, which contained a mix of live and blank ammunition, and they chose not to disclose this to the defence as legally required. At best they were grossly incompetent and at worst they tried to bury evidence detrimental to their case.

 

[ICDP]

I have been posting my opinion. Basically that a successful conviction against Baldwin in this case was very unlikely given the current factual circumstances. A conviction was unlikely even before the complete dismissal.

I do think he should have stood trial in the interest of justice, but at least the armourer was convicted for her utter negligence.

 

[ICDP]

The big problems with proving their case in this aspect, is that they would have to prove the gun didn't just go off by itself as claimed, which although improbable is definitely possible, and that itself is textbook reasonable doubt.



IMO the prosecution don't deserver a another chance at this.

They had in their possession a box of ammunition belonging to the person who loaded the gun, which contained a mix of live and blank ammunition, and they chose not to disclose this to the defence as legally required. At best they were grossly incompetent and at worst they tried to bury evidence detrimental to their case.

This was my point, the chances of conviction against Baldwin was always remote given the conviction of the armourer and the fact the prosecution case against him as the producer was dismissed. This was even before it became clear the prosecution had messed up their case.

 

[dlockers]

Tthe fact the prosecution case against him as the producer was dismissed

This is just outrageous. In an industry that self-governs in these situations, to then let the guy responsible off; someone needs a head wobble.

 

[Werewolf]

This is just outrageous. In an industry that self-governs in these situations, to then let the guy responsible off; someone needs a head wobble.

IIRC there are at least 5 other producers, not including executive, co and line.

Why would only one of the producers be prosecuted and not all the others?

A producer's role in a film is not usually in the running of the set, that is the director's job, rather the producer is involved in things like raising funding for the film and arranging distribution and some hiring decisions.

IIRC a producer can be working concurrently on a dozen or more projects, a director is on set all the time and actually running the show.