Alec Baldwin fatally shoots woman with prop gun on movie set

[dlockers]

Who is she? Michael Massee is a man.

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!

You've made enough typos in your ramblings to not be one to call folk out. The gun was checked; obviously not thoroughly enough because circumstances had led to a bullet being lodged a few inches in.

That's a different case entirely though, so not sure why you keep bringing it up.

Are you single?

 

[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.