The Alec Baldwin Trial
-
Was the law served? Yes. But, the law is an ass.
Was justice served? No. How and whether a live round made its way onto the set of "Rust" should have no bearing on the facts that..
- Hutchins was killed
- She was killed by a bullet
- The bullet was fired from a gun held by Alec Baldwin
- Alec Baldwin pointed the gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.
As one attorney commented, in a vehicular homicide case, where the accused bought the gas is ultimately irrelevant.
@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Was the law served? Yes. But, the law is an ass.
Was justice served? No. How and whether a live round made its way onto the set of "Rust" should have no bearing on the facts that..
- Hutchins was killed
- She was killed by a bullet
- The bullet was fired from a gun held by Alec Baldwin
- Alec Baldwin pointed the gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.
As one attorney commented, in a vehicular homicide case, where the accused bought the gas is ultimately irrelevant.
Yes, but in a vehicular homicide case, a person is operating a vehicle. The person knows that improper operation can cause injury or death. In Baldwin's case, he is handling what he believes to be a firearm loaded with a prop blank, firing the handgun in a movie scene. Yes, it's sloppy gun handling to point a firearm, loaded or unloaded, at somebody, but that's not the main point.
In the case, the movie armorer is at fault.
-
@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
Was the law served? Yes. But, the law is an ass.
Was justice served? No. How and whether a live round made its way onto the set of "Rust" should have no bearing on the facts that..
- Hutchins was killed
- She was killed by a bullet
- The bullet was fired from a gun held by Alec Baldwin
- Alec Baldwin pointed the gun in her direction and pulled the trigger.
As one attorney commented, in a vehicular homicide case, where the accused bought the gas is ultimately irrelevant.
Yes, but in a vehicular homicide case, a person is operating a vehicle. The person knows that improper operation can cause injury or death. In Baldwin's case, he is handling what he believes to be a firearm loaded with a prop blank, firing the handgun in a movie scene. Yes, it's sloppy gun handling to point a firearm, loaded or unloaded, at somebody, but that's not the main point.
In the case, the movie armorer is at fault.
@Jolly said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
In Baldwin's case, he is handling what he believes to be a firearm loaded with a prop blank, firing the handgun in a movie scene. Yes, it's sloppy gun handling to point a firearm, loaded or unloaded, at somebody, but that's not the main point.
No question that the armorer is at fault. However, SAG guidelines specifically state that an actor has to ensure that a firearm is safe, personally. Not rely on someone else's word on it.
Aslo, as I think I mentioned, the "I didn't know it was loaded" defense doesn't fly according to the NM Supreme Court.
-
Someone asked the question: "If Alec Baldwin had been told it's a 'cold' gun, would he put it to his head and pressed the trigger without personally checking it?"
-
Someone asked the question: "If Alec Baldwin had been told it's a 'cold' gun, would he put it to his head and pressed the trigger without personally checking it?"
-
Yeah, and if I checked every abnormal machine diff specified by most laboratory guidelines, the TAT on a CBC would be 4 hours. So, one prudently observes the guidelines and ignores them under some circumstances. But that presumes the person reading the hemogram knows what he is doing.
The SAG rule is the SAG rule. How many actors know how to press check a 1911? Look for the loaded indicator on a MP5? Most guys don't. The wife was watching one of those Hallmark mystery things the other night and the "detective" was waving his Glock around - with his finger in the trigger guard - like a drunken sailor. In real life, it's not a matter of whether the guns goes off in an accidental discharge, it's a matter of when it happens.
Granted, a Peacemaker is not a Glock or a 1911, but there's still a definitive way to check to see if it's loaded, and there is a very specific way to make sure it's carried with an empty chamber under the hammer (the Colt Army has no fire pin block). I don't expect a novice to know the correct manual of arms for a Colt 45 revolver.
-
Yeah, and if I checked every abnormal machine diff specified by most laboratory guidelines, the TAT on a CBC would be 4 hours. So, one prudently observes the guidelines and ignores them under some circumstances. But that presumes the person reading the hemogram knows what he is doing.
The SAG rule is the SAG rule. How many actors know how to press check a 1911? Look for the loaded indicator on a MP5? Most guys don't. The wife was watching one of those Hallmark mystery things the other night and the "detective" was waving his Glock around - with his finger in the trigger guard - like a drunken sailor. In real life, it's not a matter of whether the guns goes off in an accidental discharge, it's a matter of when it happens.
Granted, a Peacemaker is not a Glock or a 1911, but there's still a definitive way to check to see if it's loaded, and there is a very specific way to make sure it's carried with an empty chamber under the hammer (the Colt Army has no fire pin block). I don't expect a novice to know the correct manual of arms for a Colt 45 revolver.
@Jolly said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
How many actors know how to press check a 1911? Look for the loaded indicator on a MP5? Most guys don't.
There were "safety" conferences on the set which Mr. Baldwin did not attend.
And, sorry, checking every lab machine is not the same as pointing a potentially lethal firearm at someone.
SAG guidelines:
https://www.sagaftra.org/files/safety_bulletins_amptp_part_1_9_3_0.pdf
Doesn't say the armorer is responsible, does it?
Much more at the link.
Baldwin failed
manymost of these guidelines, including using the weapon as a "pointer" to direct cast and crew while not filming. -
Boilerplate that I'm sure is rarely followed exactly.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
As I've said, the truth has little to do with justice, and justice has little to do with the law.
Which is ultimately why I’m not in favor of the death penalty. I don’t have a moral problem with it just a practical one.
@jon-nyc said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
As I've said, the truth has little to do with justice, and justice has little to do with the law.
Which is ultimately why I’m not in favor of the death penalty. I don’t have a moral problem with it just a practical one.
Same here. We’re just not good enough at these things to take a life.
-
I still maintain that that Baldwin’s biggest culpability in all of this is from his role as the producer. He is the authority figure onsite. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for the appropriate safety precautions. He is the one responsible for making sure the Armorer is doing their job.
Yes , shit happens without the boss knowing, but that wasn’t the case, here. There were multiple close calls and crew members had left the set over safety concerns. That willful negligence on his part is quite literally criminal, and I wonder if he can face separate charges from that role?
At the very least, his Hollywood career needs to be over.
The Brad
-
I still maintain that that Baldwin’s biggest culpability in all of this is from his role as the producer. He is the authority figure onsite. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for the appropriate safety precautions. He is the one responsible for making sure the Armorer is doing their job.
Yes , shit happens without the boss knowing, but that wasn’t the case, here. There were multiple close calls and crew members had left the set over safety concerns. That willful negligence on his part is quite literally criminal, and I wonder if he can face separate charges from that role?
At the very least, his Hollywood career needs to be over.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
I still maintain that that Baldwin’s biggest culpability in all of this is from his role as the producer. He is the authority figure onsite. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for the appropriate safety precautions. He is the one responsible for making sure the Armorer is doing their job.
Agreed - I told the story before of an instance where what was alleged to be a blank cartridge, still was able to penetrate the moderately heavy steel of an oil drum. On a set, no one should be pointing a weapon at another person.
This is Baldwin's Chappaquiddick.
-
I still maintain that that Baldwin’s biggest culpability in all of this is from his role as the producer. He is the authority figure onsite. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for the appropriate safety precautions. He is the one responsible for making sure the Armorer is doing their job.
Yes , shit happens without the boss knowing, but that wasn’t the case, here. There were multiple close calls and crew members had left the set over safety concerns. That willful negligence on his part is quite literally criminal, and I wonder if he can face separate charges from that role?
At the very least, his Hollywood career needs to be over.
@LuFins-Dad said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
I still maintain that that Baldwin’s biggest culpability in all of this is from his role as the producer. He is the authority figure onsite. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for the appropriate safety precautions. He is the one responsible for making sure the Armorer is doing their job.
I agree. If you ignore all the Hollywood trappings and movie star stuff, this was a workplace safety incident. It's the responsibility of management to ensure that adequate safety procedures are in place and are adhered to.
I was only joking
-
I wonder if they can file new charges for criminal negligence not based on him pulling the trigger, but based on the lack of proper oversight?
The Brad
-
I wonder if they can file new charges for criminal negligence not based on him pulling the trigger, but based on the lack of proper oversight?
@LuFins-Dad said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
I wonder if they can file new charges for criminal negligence not based on him pulling the trigger, but based on the lack of proper oversight?
If they go after Baldwin, they really need to go after a bunch of other people too. He certainly wasn't solely responsible for safety on the set.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
I still maintain that that Baldwin’s biggest culpability in all of this is from his role as the producer. He is the authority figure onsite. He is the one who is ultimately responsible for the appropriate safety precautions. He is the one responsible for making sure the Armorer is doing their job.
I agree. If you ignore all the Hollywood trappings and movie star stuff, this was a workplace safety incident. It's the responsibility of management to ensure that adequate safety procedures are in place and are adhered to.
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
If you ignore all the Hollywood trappings and movie star stuff, this was a workplace safety incident. It's the responsibility of management to ensure that adequate safety procedures are in place and are adhered to.Back in March
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/30160/rust-armorer-guilty?_=1720914856867
on Tuesday, they had two expert witnesses from NM OSHA who testified that the workplace was unsafe, and that the ultimate responsibility for safety on set rests on the production company. It's their job to ensure training, staffing, etc are in place. Sounds like Hannah didn't have the resources, right?
Then THE NEXT DAY, they called another witness (a director/writer) who testified that many of the camera crew walked off the set because it was too dangerous. Then, when asked who can stop filming, he said, "Traditionally, only the director can yell 'Cut!' Then he goes on to say, but if there's anything dangerous about to happen, anyone, especially the armorer, can stop shooting a scene. And she didn't.
The defense claimed that Gutierrez-Reed didn't know how the live round got into Baldwin's pistol. Well, of course she didn't know - but it was her job to ensure that the weapon was safe.
The entire production was low-budget, sloppy and careless.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
@LuFins-Dad said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
If you ignore all the Hollywood trappings and movie star stuff, this was a workplace safety incident. It's the responsibility of management to ensure that adequate safety procedures are in place and are adhered to.Back in March
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/30160/rust-armorer-guilty?_=1720914856867
on Tuesday, they had two expert witnesses from NM OSHA who testified that the workplace was unsafe, and that the ultimate responsibility for safety on set rests on the production company. It's their job to ensure training, staffing, etc are in place. Sounds like Hannah didn't have the resources, right?
Then THE NEXT DAY, they called another witness (a director/writer) who testified that many of the camera crew walked off the set because it was too dangerous. Then, when asked who can stop filming, he said, "Traditionally, only the director can yell 'Cut!' Then he goes on to say, but if there's anything dangerous about to happen, anyone, especially the armorer, can stop shooting a scene. And she didn't.
The defense claimed that Gutierrez-Reed didn't know how the live round got into Baldwin's pistol. Well, of course she didn't know - but it was her job to ensure that the weapon was safe.
The entire production was low-budget, sloppy and careless.
@George-K said in The Alec Baldwin Trial:
The entire production was low-budget, sloppy and careless.
I wonder how commonplace that is on movie sets.
