Baldwin shoots two on movie set, accidental misfire???

[FUJIMO]

37 minutes ago, Lumber_Jack said:

Why is everyone here so “ok” with Baldwin being charged? Because of his politics? Or did I miss something? 
 

I still stand by the fact that these people are actors paid to act. To expect them to be proficient in gun safety is beyond the scope of their obligation. The armorer however was hired for that EXACT purpose and she failed on multiple levels leading to the death of a cinematographer. I guess I’m just on an island here by myself with those opinions 

He was an arrogant d!ck long before I knew his politics. That aside though,

1. He took on the role of producer in addition to actor and it's my opinion THAT makes him more responsible for what happens on both sides of that gun.

2. Instead of owning up to firing the gun, even accidentally toward her or in her direction he goes on national TV with George Snuggleupmypuss and proclaims he never touched the trigger. I feel a lot of actors would have at least said " you know what ,I was told to pull the trigger, I did, and now this whole thing is a terrible tragedy/accident.

I feel like his multiple roles make him the main fall guy in this case. Unless I heard it wrong there are suppose to be a crew of 3 on the set when weapons are involved and he cut 1 out due to budget. That's as good as saying "we could have been safer but I wanted to cut corners".

[crc4]

59 minutes ago, Lumber_Jack said:

Why is everyone here so “ok” with Baldwin being charged? Because of his politics? Or did I miss something? 
 

I still stand by the fact that these people are actors paid to act. To expect them to be proficient in gun safety is beyond the scope of their obligation. The armorer however was hired for that EXACT purpose and she failed on multiple levels leading to the death of a cinematographer. I guess I’m just on an island here by myself with those opinions 

If you read the law on Involuntary Manslaughter as to what that consists of, Baldwin should have been charged. Firearms, considered as dangerous instruments by their nature, are more subject to a charge of involuntary manslaughter by negligence than someone who fell on an upturned rake left negligently by the owner on a pathway.

Firearms, rightly so, require the utmost consideration by the owner, shooter, or handler. The failures of both the armorer and Baldwin led to death and great bodily injury through negligence hence the charge.

 

[Lumber_Jack]

26 minutes ago, crc4 said:

If you read the law on Involuntary Manslaughter as to what that consists of, Baldwin should have been charged. Firearms, considered as dangerous instruments by their nature, are more subject to a charge of involuntary manslaughter by negligence than someone who fell on an upturned rake left negligently by the owner on a pathway.

Firearms, rightly so, require the utmost consideration by the owner, shooter, or handler. The failures of both the armorer and Baldwin led to death and great bodily injury through negligence hence the charge.

 

Ok I can see that justification but what about all the other producers between Baldwin and the armorer? As lead producer he is less “in charge” of operational procedures than a laundry list of others.  As an actor we can agree to disagree on his responsibilities as an individual handling a firearm and I’ll acquiesce to the fact that we must hold actors accountable as we do someone in the general public. However, his role as an actor was to take a gun, handed to him by a hired arms specialist, point it at the camera and fire. So we are saying that he, as an actor, must take the firearm, remove all 6 individual bullets and check that they are blanks, then declare the weapon safe and proceed? 
 

I still believe the culpability falls on the person who knowingly brought or allowed live ammunition onto the filming site. If that’s Baldwin, fine charge him, but if not I feel it’s an overreach. I guess we’ll see when the full facts are disclosed and a jury of his peers decides the verdict. 

[monkeylizard]

3 minutes ago, Lumber_Jack said:

but what about all the other producers between Baldwin and the armorer?

The associate producer took a plea deal. He's just as culpable as Baldwin and the armorer* but only the first to squeal gets the deal.

 

* If what the armorer's attorneys say is true, she may very well be found not-guilty.

"Hannah pleaded to provide more firearms training. She was denied and brushed aside. Hannah asked to be able to perform her armorer duties more for safety reasons. She was told by production to focus on props."

Bowles and Bullion added: "Hannah asked Halls if they could use a plastic gun for the rehearsal scene and he said no, wanting a 'real gun.' Hannah asked to be called back into the church if Baldwin was going to use the gun at all and Halls failed to do that.

"The tragedy of this is had Hannah just been called back into the church by Halls, she would have performed the inspection and prevented this tragedy," they concluded. "We will fight these charges and expect that a jury will find Hannah not guilty."

[Grayfox54]

According to the report, Baldwin missed the mandatory on-set firearms safety briefing. Then when he was getting a private safety briefing, he spent most of the time on his phone and not paying attention. He should never have been allowed to hold a gun. 

The production was plagued with safety issues all along to the point that some of the crew quit.  The State of New Mexico has already heavily fined the production for numerous safety violations. 

From the DA: "The filing comes nearly two weeks after she first announced that Baldwin and Gutierrez-Reed would be prosecuted for what authorities have described as a pattern of criminal disregard for safety. "

The assistant Producer that actually handed Baldwin the gun struck a plea deal and avoided charges. In total, 3 people handled that gun and none of them properly checked it. 

In short: Baldwin thought he was too big a star to bother with the little things. That arrogance got someone killed. 

 

[crc4]

58 minutes ago, Lumber_Jack said:

So we are saying that he, as an actor, must take the firearm, remove all 6 individual bullets and check that they are blanks, then declare the weapon safe and proceed? 

Why would Baldwin not be responsible, actor or not? 

If you are a barber, plumber, or cab driver and someone hands you a gun do you feel that you do not need to check the gun because an FBI agent handed you the gun and told you it was OK? 

Baldwin wasn't handed a pencil. He was handed a dangerous instrument, a real gun, not a prop gun, knew it wasn't a prop gun, and without checking the gun for safety, he pointed it and pulled the trigger.

If that's not negligence, nothing is. He killed one person and badly wounded another. He certainly deserves to be tried for his negligence.

 

[Chucktshoes]

The safety protocols used in the industry that were developed with the assistance of the NRA remove the actor from the chain of responsibility for ensuring any real firearm used as a prop is safe to handle. While they were an improvement over prior protocols and practices, I don’t see how they actually hold any legal weight with regard to culpability for anyone’s actions. The NRA isn’t a government body that has the ability to absolve anyone of responsibility or grant legal immunity as long as someone follows the rules they set forth.

 

Regardless of the outcomes here, I suspect the industry is going to have to develop new protocols that involves more training of the actors who may handle real firearms as props, and more directly involves them in the chain of responsibility for safe usage and handling.

[pop pop]

Not hiring professionals and trying to save money bit them in the butt here. Yes Balwin is responsible. 

[crc4]

54 minutes ago, pop pop said:

Not hiring professionals and trying to save money bit them in the butt here. Yes Balwin is responsible. 

Arrogance also played a role, perhaps the leading role. Arrogance has lead many to a seat at the table of self-destruction.

[Grayfox54]

From all reports the money was the source of most all the production problems. Namely, they were too cheap to spend any. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed Reportedly complained long before the shooting that they had her doing several jobs other than armorer and she had little time to actually do the job she was hired for. 

[i1afli]

Not sure I’ve seen this before regarding other live ammo fund on the set. How the hell did these rounds end up scattered around the set?

Edited February 3, 2023 by i1afli

[Garufa]

4 minutes ago, i1afli said:

Not sure I’ve seen this before regarding other live ammo fund on the set. How the hell did these rounds end up scattered around the set?

That information or some variation of was reported shortly after the incident.  There were live rounds on the set.  The crew was plinking at some point before.

[RED333]

On 2/1/2023 at 6:36 AM, Lumber_Jack said:

Why is everyone here so “ok” with Baldwin being charged? Because of his politics? Or did I miss something? 
 

Baldwin pointed a firearm at another person, pulled the trigger, the result is that person died from being shot by the firearm that Baldwin pulled the trigger on. Seems straight forward to me.

[Lumber_Jack]

On 2/3/2023 at 6:15 AM, RED333 said:

Baldwin pointed a firearm at another person, pulled the trigger, the result is that person died from being shot by the firearm that Baldwin pulled the trigger on. Seems straight forward to me.

It’s wayyy more nuanced than that, clearly, or we wouldn’t be here still talking about it. 

[Lumber_Jack]

If all the reports are true that Baldwin disregarded safety and repeated requests for additional training then I agree that he has a significant level of culpability as a PRODUCER. 

As an ACTOR if he ignored or skipped the safety training and personal safety briefing then he should be held accountable on that level. 

I think several here don’t understand how the movie industry has worked for decades and to expect someone, again just on the actor side, to do something outside of what they’ve done historically is a bit of a reach. The scene was set for the actor to receive a weapon, point it at the camera and fire it. I agree that there should be multiple levels of redundancy in the safety process but the actor shouldn’t be the final step. The final redundant security check should happen at the prop level. The reason being is that the level of distraction and mental stress on performing a scene is significant and would lead to failures in the process simply due to mental distractions. 

I honestly don’t care about Baldwin one way or the other. I’m more concerned about culpability being placed at appropriate levels. If he was being charged with manslaughter as a producer and something less as an actor I probably wouldn’t have even opined at all. 

y’all can hit the dislike button all you want it’s just the internet. I’ve been here a long time and not too often I’m on the opposite side of the majority opinion. C’est la vie 

[Capbyrd]

38 minutes ago, Lumber_Jack said:

If all the reports are true that Baldwin disregarded safety and repeated requests for additional training then I agree that he has a significant level of culpability as a PRODUCER. 

As an ACTOR if he ignored or skipped the safety training and personal safety briefing then he should be held accountable on that level. 

I think several here don’t understand how the movie industry has worked for decades and to expect someone, again just on the actor side, to do something outside of what they’ve done historically is a bit of a reach. The scene was set for the actor to receive a weapon, point it at the camera and fire it. I agree that there should be multiple levels of redundancy in the safety process but the actor shouldn’t be the final step. The final redundant security check should happen at the prop level. The reason being is that the level of distraction and mental stress on performing a scene is significant and would lead to failures in the process simply due to mental distractions. 

I honestly don’t care about Baldwin one way or the other. I’m more concerned about culpability being placed at appropriate levels. If he was being charged with manslaughter as a producer and something less as an actor I probably wouldn’t have even opined at all. 

y’all can hit the dislike button all you want it’s just the internet. I’ve been here a long time and not too often I’m on the opposite side of the majority opinion. C’est la vie 

“It’s been done this way for years” should not be a defense.  As a matter of fact, it’s one of the worst arguments I can think of.  I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from but that doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean that we should continue functioning that way.  

[Snaveba]

Complacency is one of the leading root causes of work place injuries. Workers get so used to doing a task one way. Then, either they get lazy and an incident happens, or the situation or work environment changes and they do not adapt to the new risks. 

[RED333]

2 hours ago, Lumber_Jack said:

It’s wayyy more nuanced than that, clearly, or we wouldn’t be here still talking about it. 

What would happen if it was one of us "little people" that pulled the trigger and killed someone?

Edited February 4, 2023 by RED333

[Lumber_Jack]

1 hour ago, Capbyrd said:

“It’s been done this way for years” should not be a defense.  As a matter of fact, it’s one of the worst arguments I can think of.  I understand what you are saying and where you are coming from but that doesn’t make it right and doesn’t mean that we should continue functioning that way.  

I worked for the state of Tennessee for 7 years after working private industry for 12 prior. I’m the biggest opponent of “it’s been done this way for years”. My point was that I don’t think we can expect change without intentional implementation. We shouldn’t say you’re responsible for standards after action that we’ve not held you to prior to that action. I think there is culpability and extreme negligence here I’m just not sure it’s being applied in the manner I agree with.  If we were to separate the parties and replace Baldwin the actor with Keanu Reeves the actor, who we know is proficient with firearms and done extensive training. If he is handed a “prop” gun (terrible terminology btw), declared clear, and the same result happens, is he being charged with manslaughter? My whole premise here is that I’m not sure he would be. Maybe I’m wrong and he would. 

[Capbyrd]

8 minutes ago, Lumber_Jack said:

I worked for the state of Tennessee for 7 years after working private industry for 12 prior. I’m the biggest opponent of “it’s been done this way for years”. My point was that I don’t think we can expect change without intentional implementation. We shouldn’t say you’re responsible for standards after action that we’ve not held you to prior to that action. I think there is culpability and extreme negligence here I’m just not sure it’s being applied in the manner I agree with.  If we were to separate the parties and replace Baldwin the actor with Keanu Reeves the actor, who we know is proficient with firearms and done extensive training. If he is handed a “prop” gun (terrible terminology btw), declared clear, and the same result happens, is he being charged with manslaughter? My whole premise here is that I’m not sure he would be. Maybe I’m wrong and he would. 

By my standard, he’s charged the same.   By your standard, he’s more culpable than Baldwin because he has had training and knew better.  
 

My argument is that no adult on this planet can claim ignorance when they point a gun at someone and pull the trigger.  Negligence perhaps.  

[Lumber_Jack]

10 minutes ago, RED333 said:

What would happen if it was one of us "little people" that pulled the trigger and killed someone?

That’s a great question. There are on average 430 unintentional firearm deaths annually. How many are charged with similar offense? I can’t quickly find that answer, but I’d imagine it’s tied to the level of negligence associated with the offender. In this case I feel, if information presented is true, he had a significant level of negligence as his role as actor. Mainly dismissing safety briefings and training. But without that I think it reasonable that an actor who has been trained to think that a gun is clear when told so by the expert in charge of such matters isn’t negligently responsible for the gun being loaded. We all know gun safety and the rules associated but can we expect someone to know what they don’t know? Again it’s all moot if the actor dismissed safety training. The charging documents just said “as a produce and as an actor”. I’m simply questioning the bureaucracies and bureaucrats that we typically drag through the streets around here 

[crc4]

Here's Bruce Rivers, a criminal defense lawyer, reacting to Alec Baldwin's charges. He explains why the charges were brought and whether Baldwin was negligent.

Criminal Defense Lawyer reacts to Baldwin's Charges

[crc4]

On 2/1/2023 at 1:56 PM, Grayfox54 said:

From all reports the money was the source of most all the production problems. Namely, they were too cheap to spend any. Hannah Gutierrez-Reed Reportedly complained long before the shooting that they had her doing several jobs other than armorer and she had little time to actually do the job she was hired for. 

I'd like to know her credentials. Also her statement is self-serving, and while it may be true, doesn't take away her being the 'armorer' whose primary job is to do that job. If she didn't believe she could do it she could have quit. 

She's on the hook for criminal negligence just like Baldwin, and rightfully so.

[Grayfox54]

I'm not making excuses for Hannah. merely pointing out that they made her job much more difficult than it should have been. She was distracted from her primary job by being used as a gopher by the producers. She did complain about it only to be ignored. Just as many of the safety rules were ignored by the producers.

As for her credentials, she's the daughter of legendary shooter, fast draw artist and movie armorer Thell Reed. She's been handling guns her whole life. She wanted to follow in his footsteps. IIRC, this was only her second movie as armorer. She was hired because they could get her cheap. Again back to the all mighty dollar. 

I feel for the girl and understand her plight. But if she really did screw up, then so be it. let the chips fall where they may. 

[crc4]

17 minutes ago, Grayfox54 said:

I'm not making excuses for Hannah. merely pointing out that they made her job much more difficult than it should have been. She was distracted from her primary job by being used as a gopher by the producers. She did complain about it only to be ignored. Just as many of the safety rules were ignored by the producers.

As for her credentials, she's the daughter of legendary shooter, fast draw artist and movie armorer Thell Reed. She's been handling guns her whole life. She wanted to follow in his footsteps. IIRC, this was only her second movie as armorer. She was hired because they could get her cheap. Again back to the all mighty dollar. 

I feel for the girl and understand her plight. But if she really did screw up, then so be it. let the chips fall where they may. 

I'm not accusing you of making excuses for her at all. You were reporting what you've read or been told.

As to being the daughter of Thell Reed, one would think she'd have learned better because she did in fact, fail to do her job - the one job that really mattered. 

Hiring someone because they're cheap has, in this case, proved to be extremely expensive.

Had she done her job, regardless of the pay, regardless of being a gopher, regardless of her complaints, two people would have not been shot with one dead. That's why, regardless of her intentions, she is criminally negligent.

I'm anxious to see the case as I'm betting it will be televised. At least I hope so.