Alec Baldwin

CatAlum

Well-known member
Seems to me that the case against the "armorer"...the person who is in charge of handing out safe guns...is a better case than against Baldwin. BUT...

Who hired the armorer? Who hired the person who hired the armorer? Does it all lead neatly back to Baldwin? Reminds of the famous Paul Brown story...bus driver taking the Browns to the stadium in an away city...gets lost...can't find the stadium. PB sitting up front..."you must want to have me fired, Mr. Brown." Brown..."No, I want to fire the person who hired you".
 

Cubsandtigers

Well-known member
Interesting take on the criminal justice system...the "mopes" have all the power...

The government has their "in" that will allow them to present a scenario of what occurred from a witness who was in the middle of it all...the assistant director has pled guilty to a lesser offense in which he is apparently being (provisionally) promised a short period of probation...WITH AN AGREEMENT THAT HE TESTIFIES.

This case will be prosecutor 101...that lady is DEAD!!!! Here's her picture-look at that big hole in her head! YOU (jury) have to do something about it! Never mind the legal niceties...these two defendants are here...no one else is going to be accused. It's them or NOTHIN'...CONVICT!

The resounding opinion of legal experts seems to be that this is a stunt by the prosecutor and Baldwin will beat it easily.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
Seems to me that the case against the "armorer"...the person who is in charge of handing out safe guns...is a better case than against Baldwin. BUT...

Who hired the armorer? Who hired the person who hired the armorer? Does it all lead neatly back to Baldwin? Reminds of the famous Paul Brown story...bus driver taking the Browns to the stadium in an away city...gets lost...can't find the stadium. PB sitting up front..."you must want to have me fired, Mr. Brown." Brown..."No, I want to fire the person who hired you".
Who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger?
 

chs1971

Well-known member
Seems to me that the case against the "armorer"...the person who is in charge of handing out safe guns...is a better case than against Baldwin. BUT...

Who hired the armorer? Who hired the person who hired the armorer? Does it all lead neatly back to Baldwin? Reminds of the famous Paul Brown story...bus driver taking the Browns to the stadium in an away city...gets lost...can't find the stadium. PB sitting up front..."you must want to have me fired, Mr. Brown." Brown..."No, I want to fire the person who hired you".
Is the armorer in charge of handing the gun to the actor? I thought it was somebody else.

I have and extremely limited second-hand idea of what the safety protocols are on a movie set. I would guess that when real guns are being used more than one person would have to verify that the gun is safe to handle.

But maybe not.

I would like to feel sorry for Baldwin, but because he is such a mean-spirited genuine jerk I cannot.
 

brianwr112

Well-known member
The mens rea the prosecutors are going to prove is recklessness. Baldwins' argument will be it's not his fault because he was handed a gun he believed was empty. There have been plenty of cases where people were given guns they thought were empty until they shoot the person in front of them. It is not a legal defense, therefore they get convicted. The law isn't any different on a movie set.

I'm sure they take it to a jury if it goes to trial and then who knows what happens.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
Would you like this “standard” (on whether or not to charge you with a felony) applied to you when you have a car accident and the other driver is injured and you are at fault?
When cars and guns are on equal footing, let me know.

If I hand you a gun, and tell you, don’t worry, it’s safe to point it at somebody and pull the trigger, shame on you for not validating that.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
The mens rea the prosecutors are going to prove is recklessness. Baldwins' argument will be it's not his fault because he was handed a gun he believed was empty. There have been plenty of cases where people were given guns they thought were empty until they shoot the person in front of them. It is not a legal defense, therefore they get convicted. The law isn't any different on a movie set.

I'm sure they take it to a jury if it goes to trial and then who knows what happens.
Baldwin will be smart to cop a plea
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
Baldwin will be smart to cop a plea
If you’re suggesting a plea bargain (reduction) will be offered to Baldwin, I think that’s unlikely.

He‘s charged with a probationable, low level felony. If the prosecutors felt that way toward Baldwin, I don’t think they would have charged him.
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
If I hand you a gun, and tell you, don’t worry, it’s safe to point it at somebody and pull the trigger, shame on you for not validating that.
It was a professional, working relationship, as distinguished from the scenario you just laid out. When an astronaut gets into his rocket, there is a level of reliance on the experts. Baldwin’s lawyers will make the same argument.

Or a nurse relying on a pharmaceutical company to properly mix/dose a pain med…
 
Last edited:

BlueDevil2022

Active member
It was a professional, working relationship, as distinguished from the scenario you just laid out. When an astronaut gets into his rocket, there is a level of reliance on the experts. Baldwin’s lawyers will make the same argument.
it would have been a much better story with more irony in it if he would have put it up to his own head and pulled the trigger though.

then he would have become a legend like Elvis or Hendrix or Jim Morrison.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
It was a professional, working relationship, as distinguished from the scenario you just laid out. When an astronaut gets into his rocket, there is a level of reliance on the experts. Baldwin’s lawyers will make the same argument.

Or a nurse relying on a pharmaceutical company to properly mix/dose a pain med…
Nurses don't have the skills or time to scientifically analyze medications.

I'm not a gun owner, but I could open the chamber of a pistol and tell if the bullets in it were real ones.
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
If you’re suggesting a plea bargain (reduction) will be offered to Baldwin, I think that’s unlikely.

He‘s charged with a probationable, low level felony. If the prosecutors felt that way toward Baldwin, I don’t think they would have charged him.
The one charge he has carries a five year minimum sentence.
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
The one charge he has carries a five year minimum sentence.
I stand corrected…I read an article that stated the penalty was “up to” 5 years. In my world (Ohio, federal courts) that means the sentence, if convicted, can be probation up to 5 years.
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
Nurses don't have the skills or time to scientifically analyze medications.

I'm not a gun owner, but I could open the chamber of a pistol and tell if the bullets in it were real ones.
Why do you assume someone without a gun background would, with confidence, know how to deal with a semi-automatic? One in the chamber, etc…
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
If your point of view is sustainable…

Why would a movie production employ someone called an “armorer”? Why not just have some general prop person bring a box to the actor, with the gun inside, hand him the box and say…”the gun is inside, it’s on you, Alec”? Gun safety requires no expertise…apparently.

I think the prosecutor, in order to maintain credibility with the jury will have to choose…at the beginning. Baldwin, the actor is guilty of a crime OR Baldwin the producer is guilty of a crime. I don’t think she can have it both ways…
 

OldSoulon

Well-known member
Why do you assume someone without a gun background would, with confidence, know how to deal with a semi-automatic? One in the chamber, etc…
Well, I would assume most would know better than to point and pull the trigger without absolutely knowing it was safe.
 

brianwr112

Well-known member
Did Baldwin recklessly/negligently fire a firearm causing the death of another person? Yes

If you hand me a weapon, and I take possession, it is my responsibility to use the weapon safely at that point. Part of using a weapon safely is checking the condition of the gun which would include if it was loaded.
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
Did Baldwin recklessly/negligently fire a firearm causing the death of another person? Yes

If you hand me a weapon, and I take possession, it is my responsibility to use the weapon safely at that point. Part of using a weapon safely is checking the condition of the gun which would include if it was loaded.
So, why do you employ an amorer?
 

eastisbest

Well-known member
Did Baldwin recklessly/negligently fire a firearm causing the death of another person? Yes

If you hand me a weapon, and I take possession, it is my responsibility to use the weapon safely at that point. Part of using a weapon safely is checking the condition of the gun which would include if it was loaded.
It wasn't supposed to be a firearm. He wasn't handed a weapon. It was supposed to be an impotent prop. It wasn't even his prop. If he'd thrown it at someone or used it in some other unintended fashion, then maybe. What is the argument that he did that?

I think CatAlum is correct here.
 

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
It wasn't supposed to be a firearm. He wasn't handed a weapon. It was supposed to be an impotent prop. It wasn't even his prop. If he'd thrown it at someone or used it in some other unintended fashion, then maybe. What is the argument that he did that?

I think CatAlum is correct here.
It was a firearm, no matter what was loaded into it, or empty. It was not modified in any way to make it not a firearm. Baldwin knew that. That a supposed expert assured him that it was loaded with dummy rounds does not change the party with the ultimate responsibility for the incident, that always belongs to the person pulling the trigger.

Is there evidence that Baldwin checked the gun for dummy rounds and made an error in evaluation or simply took the armorer at her word? The latter gives him a far greater share of the blame IMO. Neither absolves him.
 
Last edited:

queencitybuckeye

Well-known member
Would you like this “standard” (on whether or not to charge you with a felony) applied to you when you have a car accident and the other driver is injured and you are at fault?
Do I have a responsibility to insure to the limit of my expertise that the car was safe to drive? If the condition of the vehicle could reasonably have been known to have an increased chance of being in an accident, is there negligence on my part?
 

CatAlum

Well-known member
I think that is what this case will come down to. What purpose did the armorer serve? What expertise did they have? Who hired them? What was the protocol for delivering the guns?

This is a good article about the missteps:
That’s a well-reasoned article, though I think this article, published in Reuters, is more reflective of the general legal view on charging Baldwin…that it’s legally “aggressive”, a “stretch”…

”Experts interviewed by Reuters could not cite another instance in which criminal charges stemmed from an accidental shooting death on a film set.

When Bruce Lee's son, Brandon Lee, was fatally shot by an improperly inspected gun on the set of "The Crow" in 1993, prosecutors concluded it was an accident caused by negligence and declined to bring charges.”


The law in this type of death is most similar to motor vehicle accidents. If I’m driving my car…and SOBER…and some careless act of mine results in a car accident that kills another driver, I could be charged with Aggravated Vehicular Homicide…but, generally, I won’t be charged. There is a negligent version of that statute in Ohio (a misdemeanor) and a reckless version (a felony). If there is a charge (which is infrequent), and the driver was sober, it would typically be a misdemeanor. A felony charge for sober fatal accident (even with obvious traffic violation) is extremely rare.
 
Last edited:
.
Top