Alec Baldwin

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".
 
CatAlum said:
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!
Click to expand...

The resounding opinion of legal experts seems to be that this is a stunt by the prosecutor and Baldwin will beat it easily.
 
CatAlum said:
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".
Click to expand...
Who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger?
 
CatAlum said:
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".
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
CatAlum said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
brianwr112 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Baldwin will be smart to cop a plea
 
OldSoulon said:
Baldwin will be smart to cop a plea
Click to expand...
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.
 
OldSoulon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
CatAlum said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
CatAlum said:
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…
Click to expand...
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.
 
CatAlum said:
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.
Click to expand...
The one charge he has carries a five year minimum sentence.
 
OldSoulon said:
The one charge he has carries a five year minimum sentence.
Click to expand...
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.
 
OldSoulon said:
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.
Click to expand...
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…
 
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…
 
CatAlum said:
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…
Click to expand...
Well, I would assume most would know better than to point and pull the trigger without absolutely knowing it was safe.
 
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.
 
brianwr112 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, why do you employ an amorer?
 
CatAlum said:
So, why do you employ an amorer?
Click to expand...
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:
 
brianwr112 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
eastisbest said:
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.
Click to expand...
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:
CatAlum said:
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?
Click to expand...
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?
 
Yappi said:
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:
Click to expand...
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.”

www.reuters.com

Alec Baldwin 'Rust' shooting charges could be difficult to prove

Prosecutors could face long odds convincing a jury that Alec Baldwin is criminally liable for the fatal shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins during the filming of the Western "Rust,” according to several legal experts.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

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:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top