Alec Baldwin

The 1987 trial in Los Angeles in which Vic Morrow was decapitated by a helicopter blade in a special effects accident…two child actors died as well..jury acquits all defendants…

www.latimes.com

John Landis Not Guilty in 3 'Twilight Zone' Deaths : Jury Also Exonerates Four Others

Director John Landis was found innocent this afternoon of involuntary manslaughter in the deaths of actor Vic Morrow and two child actors killed on the "Twilight Zone" movie set.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
 
CatAlum said:
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.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? The at-fault driver in Ohio is always charged which includes fatal accidents. I’m not sure where you got that Ohio rarely charges sober drivers. They may not get jail time but usually get a few years of probation and lengthy license suspension.
 
brianwr112 said:
What are you talking about? The at-fault driver in Ohio is always charged which includes fatal accidents. I’m not sure where you got that Ohio rarely charges sober drivers. They may not get jail time but usually get a few years of probation and lengthy license suspension.
Click to expand...
That‘s not my experience in my part of the state. And, as you mention, if charged, it’s a misdemeanor…treated very leniently…
 
I would expect a document of this type to be central to Baldwin’s defense. This is a union local of International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) union worker’s job description for an armorer…

***

DUTIES

Armorers are responsible for the transport, storage, and safe use of all weaponry and firearms on film sets. It is illegal to use NFA (and sometimes Title 1) firearms on set unless a licensed Armorer is present. Armorers are highly skilled individuals, with a great deal of responsibility for the safety of the cast and crew. They ensure that weapons are used safely and correctly, and that those who handle them (usually Actors) are competent to do so. They liaise with the Production Designer, Properties Master, Producer, Director, Camera crew and Actors, and they may work with a Fight Director and Stunt team if they are employed on the production.

The Armorer on a Film/TV set is present to ensure the safety of the cast and crew when weapons are used. The Armorer also ensures the production is able to get the best possible look of blank firing weapons.

The Armorer should know what the director wants to achieve and help them carry it out in a safe manor. The actor/actress who will be firing the weapon should be instructed on the particular weapon(s) used as to the dangers and safe use. They should be instructed as to where to aim and how many blank rounds they have. The Armorer should be aware of and make the cast and crew aware of where the spent shells will eject.

The Armorer should immediately collect all firearms and safely secure them after each discharge. The Locations Department on a Film set should be in direct contact with the police service bureaus and make sure they meet the Armorer and that the Armorer has an opportunity to show the officer the plugged weapons and receive permission to operate the weapons.

 
Last edited:
OldSoulon said:
Bottom line is if Baldwin wasn’t such a self righteous a whole, and a pr**k by all accounts, there might be some sympathy thrown his way.
Click to expand...
Well, at least you’re acknowledging why many on this thread are motivated against him. And I don’t think it’s flat out wrong to charge him. I tend to agree with the viewpoint that, at least, it’s a stretch. That doesn’t mean I’m confident he’ll be acquitted. Predicting what juries will do is a losing proposition.
 
There are two arguments at play. The legal argument that he was over-charged or even should not face charges as it was an unfortunate accident is valid and one can agree or disagree. The argument that he is not in part responsible ethically and/or morally because he relied completely on the "expert" simply doesn't fly. He violated at least one of the cardinal rules of firearm safety. There is no excusing that fact. Ever.
 
brianwr112 said:
What are you talking about? The at-fault driver in Ohio is always charged which includes fatal accidents. I’m not sure where you got that Ohio rarely charges sober drivers. They may not get jail time but usually get a few years of probation and lengthy license suspension.
Click to expand...
bull crap criminal charges are purely at the discretion of the law enforcement agency investigating or the director of law in the court jurisdiction where it occurs.

you don't know what you're talking about.
 
queencitybuckeye said:
There are two arguments at play. The legal argument that he was over-charged or even should not face charges as it was an unfortunate accident is valid and one can agree or disagree. The argument that he is not in part responsible ethically and/or morally because he relied completely on the "expert" simply doesn't fly. He violated at least one of the cardinal rules of firearm safety. There is no excusing that fact. Ever.
Click to expand...
There‘s criminal (indict); there’s civil (sue for money damages); there’s moral (go see your priest). We’re talking about criminal only at this point. Lots of “wrong” behavior…that IS wrong…doesn’t go into the criminal hopper...especially when the behavior falls into, arguably, the negligent state of mind (as opposed to knowing or purposeful).
 
queencitybuckeye said:
There are two arguments at play. The legal argument that he was over-charged or even should not face charges as it was an unfortunate accident is valid and one can agree or disagree. The argument that he is not in part responsible ethically and/or morally because he relied completely on the "expert" simply doesn't fly. He violated at least one of the cardinal rules of firearm safety. There is no excusing that fact. Ever.
Click to expand...
He was charged with the lowest level. Pretty black and white probable cause to charge him with involuntary manslaughter. He will likely plea and get probation
 
Raider6309 said:
He was charged with the lowest level. Pretty black and white probable cause to charge him with involuntary manslaughter. He will likely plea and get probation
Click to expand...
Lowest level of felony? I wonder if there is a misdemeanor that would be more appropriate (meaning a greater probability of success).
 
queencitybuckeye said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nope. It was a prop. There's a prop ladder on the set. Shhh, it's actually a real ladder but it's role is as a prop. Everyone knows, ladders are dangerous. Actor climbs ladder, it tips, lands on someone's head and kills them. That actor isn't charged. Not even accused. Hell, it could happen at home and you're not accused of any level of manslaughter. Fortunately, you won't have to wait long to find out you're wrong. :D

Someone screwed up. Unless there were safety coded written in the state that any actor holding a gun as a prop is responsible for the actions of that prop, actor Baldwin skates. Other roll Baldwin, maybe, maybe not. Given there had been a threat to walk-off because of safety concerns the civil case will be the more interesting one. There may well have been manslaugher but unless Baldwin loaded the gun, it wasn't him. There will always be doubt some moron didn't load a round on purpose, to make a point.
 
Last edited:
eastisbest said:
Nope. It was a prop.
Click to expand...
No, there was a firearm on the set. You load a cartridge into it, pull the trigger and a bullet flies downrange. It's a gun. Rule one of gun safety is always assume the gun is loaded unless you yourself determine it is not. Baldwin broke that rule. Whether it justifies the charges against him, or a lesser charge, or none at all can be debated. The point you're trying to make is factually incorrect. Gun in my hand, my responsibility as to what happens. Calling a gun something other that a gun to try to escape blame is incredibly weak.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
queencitybuckeye said:
No, there was a firearm on the set. You load a cartridge into it, pull the trigger and a bullet flies downrange. It's a gun. Rule one of gun safety is always assume the gun is loaded unless you yourself determine it is not. Baldwin broke that rule. Whether it justifies the charges against him, or a lesser charge, or none at all can be debated. The point you're trying to make is factually incorrect. Gun in my hand, my responsibility as to what happens. Calling a gun something other that a gun to try to escape blame is incredibly weak.
Click to expand...
We’re filming Gunfight at the OK Corral…Tombstone, Arizona. Three Earp’s, Doc Holliday against the Clantons and their gang. About 10 people in all. Some actors know guns; some don’t. We block out the action, rehearse it. Now we’re ready to put it on film. Everyone gets a gun from the armorer for the shootout scene. We’re ready to go. The 10 actors, of varying skill and experience with guns, take apart their prop guns to determine for themself if the gun is safe…not that three or four of them even have a clue.

Right…
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CatAlum said:
We’re filming Gunfight at the OK Corral…Tombstone, Arizona. Three Earp’s, Doc Holliday against the Clantons and their gang. About 10 people in all. Some actors know guns; some don’t. We block out the action, rehearse it. Now we’re ready to put it on film. Everyone gets a gun from the armorer for the shootout scene. We’re ready to go. The 10 actors, of varying skill and experience with guns, take apart their prop guns to determine for themself if the gun is safe…not that three or four of them even have a clue.

Right…
Click to expand...
So someone puts a gun in my hand that claims to be an expert, I have no responsibility, just start pulling the trigger?
 
CatAlum said:
That‘s not my experience in my part of the state. And, as you mention, if charged, it’s a misdemeanor…treated very leniently…
Click to expand...
I've worked in the criminal justice system for 15 years in various capacities including cop, for a criminal attorney and in the courts. You are 100 wrong in saying the state doesn't prosecute those cases. It's state law that they have to. Every fatality is reported through the state and done through special Accident Investigation Units. Any charge they meet, they are prosecuted for. They may reach a deal after that depending on circumstances.

Baldwin didn't check the gun and pulled the trigger. If a gun dealer hands me a gun, says it's empty and then shoot someone...I still get charged. Gun dealer would have liability as well.
 
brianwr112 said:
I've worked in the criminal justice system for 15 years in various capacities including cop, for a criminal attorney and in the courts. You are 100 wrong in saying the state doesn't prosecute those cases. It's state law that they have to. Every fatality is reported through the state and done through special Accident Investigation Units. Any charge they meet, they are prosecuted for. They may reach a deal after that depending on circumstances.

Baldwin didn't check the gun and pulled the trigger. If a gun dealer hands me a gun, says it's empty and then shoot someone...I still get charged. Gun dealer would have liability as well.
Click to expand...
the charging is completely at the discretion of the prosecuting atty, and cops can easily cover up crimes with incompetent investigation.
 
queencitybuckeye said:
Sorry, I have absolutely no idea what you're saying here.
Click to expand...
They're all blindly in charge of highly dangerous things they're ok to presume work as intended, like a prop gun working like a prop gun.


If there were coded laws on handling of prop guns, they'd have been all over the internet by now. Unless they can clearly indicate he didn't follow rules for handling a PROP gun, this will come down to whatever present square law the prosecutor can stretch to fit the round reality. If they can't, he skates as least in his role as actor.

If the prosecutor attempts to make this a gun case, the defendant's lawyers will send it down the same rabbit hole CatAlum has been explaining. They will put Baldwin on as the face of every person ever that operates anything that has the potential to harm. Which is anything.

For discussion, I think it important to remember, we here are only predicting how we think this is going to go down or maybe how we wish it to. The process is playing out in the real as expected. Prosecutor has an election to win or prosecutor doing due diligence, one of those probably.
 
Last edited:
eastisbest said:
They're all blindly in charge of highly dangerous things they're ok to presume work as intended, like a prop gun working like a prop gun.
Click to expand...
A "prop gun" would be something that looks like a gun but is not capable of firing. This is the polar opposite of a real gun being used as a prop, and is not simply semantics. Justin Bieber's fat uncle pulled the trigger on a gun, not a "prop gun", without ensuring the gun was not loaded with live ammunition. Those are the facts and are not in dispute. What the legal system should do based on those facts are matters of law and opinion.

Assuming you're accurately describing what another poster meant, some of the examples are factually incorrect.
 
Last edited:
queencitybuckeye said:
Assuming you're accurately describing what another poster meant, some of the examples are factually incorrect.
Click to expand...
He has.

Which examples are factually incorrect (not that I included any facts)?

I'll wait for the reply...I'm going to lunch first...going to get on the elevator from the 20th floor...on 2nd thought...I will take the stairs...the walk back up will be exhausting, but I'm going to apply your standard...it's safer that way.
 
CatAlum said:
He has.

Which examples are factually incorrect (not that I included any facts)?

I'll wait for the reply...I'm going to lunch first...going to get on the elevator from the 20th floor...on 2nd thought...I will take the stairs...the walk back up will be exhausting, but I'm going to apply your standard...it's safer that way.
Click to expand...
Your safety isn't at issue, it's putting others at risk.

The pilot example is simply wrong. Others do the work, but the pilots have great responsibility in ensuring the craft is safe to use.
 
Last edited:
One question that seems to be hanging out there is why was there a live bullet on the set? Is there ever a reason for having live bullets on the set of a TV show or movie?

While this was a tragic situation, I don't believe it was an "accident" that can just be swept away with a monetary award. Someone did something wrong that resulted in the death of a person. The tricky part is finding out who ultimately did the wrong thing.
 
Yappi said:
One question that seems to be hanging out there is why was there a live bullet on the set? Is there ever a reason for having live bullets on the set of a TV show or movie?

While this was a tragic situation, I don't believe it was an "accident" that can just be swept away with a monetary award. Someone did something wrong that resulted in the death of a person. The tricky part is finding out who ultimately did the wrong thing.
Click to expand...
Agree there shouldn't have been a live round on set. I'm sure that is/was investigated very thoroughly. We don't know what all the investigation revealed, only what the charging documents and other court documents have stated. The final act, which caused the death, was Baldwin pulling the trigger on a live firearm.

Calling it a prop is not a criminal defense. It was a real gun. A reasonable person would believe that pulling the trigger on a live gun would cause it to fire.
 
brianwr112 said:
Agree there shouldn't have been a live round on set. I'm sure that is/was investigated very thoroughly. We don't know what all the investigation revealed, only what the charging documents and other court documents have stated. The final act, which caused the death, was Baldwin pulling the trigger on a live firearm.

Calling it a prop is not a criminal defense. It was a real gun. A reasonable person would believe that pulling the trigger on a live gun would cause it to fire.
Click to expand...
"prop" means "property" not "fake"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top