Alec Baldwin WTF

https://www.insider.com/who-is-hanna...ooting-2021-10

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

1: the shot called for the gun looking to be loaded
2: he states he didn't even pull the trigger

This case against him is a hudge waste of time and money. That da is going to look like a fool. But nm gotta nm.

---

This. How is an actor supposed to determine if the gun he’s handling is loaded with fake bullets that look real or real bullets? If I’m being pretend shot I’d much rather have that solely on the armorer than start involving actors.

Imagine proving negligence here, so you had a professional whose job was to make sure the gun didn’t have live rounds, the set didn’t have live rounds, there are rules against live rounds and still the actor is at fault. I get criminal charges against the armored but not the actor. What happens if a stunt car malfunctions? The actors supposed to inspect the brakes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

It'll be tough to convict all of those actors of involuntary manslaughter given that no one died. A dead body is a fairly critical element of that crime.

---

You should note the word “attempted” and if you noted it you should look it up.

Are there any crimes that are attempted involuntary? (attempted criminal negligence? / involuntary intent?)



Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neufox47

You should note the word “attempted” and if you noted it you should look it up.

---

There's no such thing as attempted involuntary manslaughter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

There's no such thing as attempted involuntary manslaughter.

---

Not with that attitude there's not

The point is, is what he did reckless? Did he attempt to do something reckless, typically to the point of being illegal. Is it reckless to get handed a gun on a movie set, by a professional, and then pull the trigger. It literally happens millions of times a year. Also, this is somewhat regulated to the point of having protocols and the official protocols do not seem to be violated.

Imagine if you followed the accepted protocols in your industry, someone tragically died, and you were still criminally charged.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neufox47

Imagine if you followed the accepted protocols in your industry, someone tragically died, and you were still criminally charged.

---

But that changes when you're also a producer on the set and you create an environment where the accepted protocols aren't being followed. I'd bet that's the only reason he's being charged; if he was just an actor who pulled the trigger, I don't think there'd be charges here.

Just got my brakes done at Midas. There are better mechanics but Midas was cheaper.. Brakes failed and someone died because I couldn't stop. Midas clearly fucked up the front disk brakes. No one is disputing that. Authorities ask if I tried the emergency brake. I swear I did... FBI says I didn't and it was working fine according to their inspection. That's where we are here..

Just about everyone has said "AB should've checked the gun to ensure it wasn't loaded..." First of all, it was loaded, it had to be loaded for the scene. Second, who's to says he didn't check to see if it was loaded or not? It sounds like the armorer showed him the weapon and said it was cold. Third, what's the distinction here if the gun was supposed to be loaded with a blank that appeared to be a live round? Fourth, are all actors ballistic experts, or should they be, who can tell the difference visually from a blank that supposed to look like a live round vs. a live round?

Producer thing...he's one of many producers, are they all to blame? Maybe. Why is only AB charged?

Writer thing...we're not seriously suggesting that anyone that's written a script for a movie be charged with crimes if safety issues crop up on a set, are we?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

There's no such thing as attempted involuntary manslaughter.

---

It varies by state. In Washington, a prosecutor can charge "attempted" any crime on the books. I have seen some weird ones, like attempted DUI.

Point I am trying to make is that the specific, criminal act here is failing to check the gun. That same specific criminal act has happened thousands of times in movie history without someone being charged with a crime. A crime that involves a reckless act but no dead body, like reckless endangerment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

It varies by state. In Washington, a prosecutor can charge "attempted" any crime on the books. I have seen some weird ones, like attempted DUI.

Point I am trying to make is that the specific, criminal act here is failing to check the gun. That same specific criminal act has happened thousands of times in movie history without someone being charged with a crime that involves a reckless act but no dead body, like reckless endangerment.

---

Are we even sure that the gun went unchecked? Again, what does AB know about ammo and firearms that would render him an expert at determining if a round that's supposed to look like a live round but really isn't? I've seen obvious blank rounds during some work we did at Universal for a study there...I can't say that I've seen a round that is intended to look like a live round, but really isn't. i'm sure there is a marking on it somewhere that indicates it's not a live round, but would AB know that? Would he know how to see that, what the differences are, etc.?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

But that changes when you're also a producer on the set and you create an environment where the accepted protocols aren't being followed. I'd bet that's the only reason he's being charged; if he was just an actor who pulled the trigger, I don't think there'd be charges here.

---

People keep bringing up the Baldwin is a producer part. Prosecutors can't just throw shit at a wall and see what sticks. They have to disclose their specific theory of the crime. Baldwin will nail them down on this. So what specific thing did Baldwin do, or not do, as a producer make him criminally liable? It's not enough to just say the set was a shit show and safety protocols were generally not being followed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Are we even sure that the gun went unchecked?

---

I think the prosecutor's theory is that Baldwin didn't check, and if he did check, he didn't do a thorough enough of a check. Baldwin will counter that he did check and even if he didn't, it wasn't common in the industry for actors to check every time they are handed a gun for a scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Point I am trying to make is that the specific, criminal act here is failing to check the gun.

---

I don't think that's true. I think it's failing to check the gun combined with creating an environment where it was no longer reasonable for an actor to rely on the safety professionals on set.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

I don't think that's true. I think it's failing to check the gun combined with creating an environment where it was no longer reasonable for an actor to rely on the safety professionals on set.

---

That seems like even a higher bar to clear for the prosecution. Both must be true then, not one or the other, and both must be the ultimate responsibility of AB.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

I don't think that's true. I think it's failing to check the gun combined with creating an environment where it was no longer reasonable for an actor to rely on the safety professionals on set.

---

Maybe that is where the prosecutor tries to take this, but I want to see how Baldwin, specifically, created that environment. And why he, alone, is the one to blame for creating that environment.

This is turning into an Enron-like criminal case where the person at the top is charged with the shit show. That happens in big, complicated, corporate criminal cases. But I have never seen a criminal manslaughter case like that. Civil cases, yes. But not criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

That seems like even a higher bar to clear for the prosecution. Both must be true then, not one or the other, and both must be the ultimate responsibility of AB.

---

That would be true. And not only that, all 12 members of the jurors must unanimously agree. You can't have 6 say he's guilty for not checking. And 6 saying he's guilty because he was the producer. All 12 would have to say he's guilty because of both reasons. At least in Washington, that's how it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Maybe that is where the prosecutor tries to take this, but I want to see how Baldwin, specifically, created that environment. And why he, alone, is the one to blame for creating that environment.

---

He doesn't need to be solely responsible for the creation of the dangerous environment. There's no requirement that every potentially culpable party be charged. But Baldwin's the one who pulled the trigger. And if he knew (or should've known) that it was no longer reasonable to rely on the advice of the safety professionals because of the environment on the set (which he, as a producer, was part of creating), then yeah, maybe he's on the hook.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

There's no requirement that every potentially culpable party be charged.

---

That's true. And at trial, the judge will likely stop Baldwin from arguing others should have been charged too (because charging decisions are irrelevant). But Baldwin can argue that there were others at the top that are equally, or more, responsible for overall safety protocol on the set than him. He can also call all these other people as witnesses and I assume they will be pleading the 5th in front of the jury. David Halls, the assistant director who already plead, will not be able to plead the 5th. So he can get on the stand and say it was 100% my fault and Baldwin had nothing to do with it. If the armorer who has been charged pleads before Baldwin, she can be called as well and say it was all my fault. Everyone will be pointing the finger at another. This trial is going to be just as big of a shit show as the movie set.

The prosecutor's theory in this case seems unique in US history. I would not be surprised if the judge tosses this case at the preliminary stage and the case never even makes it to trial.

I could see the prosecutor offering a plea deal to a misdemeanor with no jail. And I could see Baldwin accept that deal because he appears to sincerely not want to put the victim's family through any more anguish. But this bugs me, because a prosecutor is not supposed to use very serious felony charges with mandatory prison time to extort a plea to a lesser charge.

The civil case against Baldwin has already been settled. So the victim's family would not be paid anything extra if there is a criminal conviction. Smart of Baldwin to settle the civil case as soon as he could.

Uh, that’s how DAs have operated for as long as I can remember

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

That's true. And at trial, the judge will likely stop Baldwin from arguing others should have been charged too (because charging decisions are irrelevant). But Baldwin can argue that there were others at the top that are equally, or more, responsible for overall safety protocol on the set than him. He can also call all these other people as witnesses and I assume they will be pleading the 5th in front of the jury. David Halls, the assistant director who already plead, will not be able to plead the 5th. So he can get on the stand and say it was 100% my fault and Baldwin had nothing to do with it. If the armorer who has been charged pleads before Baldwin, she can be called as well and say it was all my fault. Everyone will be pointing the finger at another. This trial is going to be just as big of a shit show as the movie set.

The prosecutor's theory in this case seems unique in US history. I would not be surprised if the judge tosses this case at the preliminary stage and the case never even makes it to trial.

---

Yup, agreed. What Baldwin is theoretically guilty of is ultimately fairly irrelevant. I doubt he'll be convicted of anything.

My guess is that this is mostly a small town prosecutor from a conservative area that's seeing an opportunity to make a name for themselves by going after one of the right's liberal boogeymen. If it ever makes it to trial, Baldwin's lawyers will mop the floor with the prosecution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

I think the prosecutor's theory is that Baldwin didn't check, and if he did check, he didn't do a thorough enough of a check. Baldwin will counter that he did check and even if he didn't, it wasn't common in the industry for actors to check every time they are handed a gun for a scene.

---

Meh. If he was a shooter holding an LTC I could see him checking.
But as an actor without gun safety training? Wtf. He relies on his team.

Why isn’t the woman being charged? It was her job. She had one thing to do. And failed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Core Shot

Why isn’t the woman being charged? It was her job. She had one thing to do. And failed.

---

She is charged. From NYTimes:

The film’s armorer, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who loaded the gun that day and was responsible for weapons on the set, will also be charged with two counts of involuntary manslaughter. The film’s first assistant director, Dave Halls, who handed Mr. Baldwin the gun, agreed to a plea deal on a charge of negligent use of a deadly weapon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

My guess is that this is mostly a small town prosecutor from a conservative area that's seeing an opportunity to make a name for themselves by going after one of the right's liberal boogeymen.

---

The prosecutor in charge of this case, Mary Carmack-Altwies, is a Democrat, former public defender, lesbian, married to former cop. Her district is Sante Fe, Los Alamos, and Rio Arriba counties. All three of these counties voted for Biden (as well as NM overwhelmingly so). Sante Fe and Los Alamos are the liberal capitals of NM.

Mary Carmack-Altwies has appointed special prosecutor Andrea Reeb, a Republican from a district just north of Roswell. But from my reading, Reeb just assisted in the investigation and charging decision. It's still Carmack-Altwies who is ultimately calling the shots. And it is unlikely Reeb would act as the trial attorney because she has a day job (state legislature).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

The prosecutor in charge of this case, Mary Carmack-Altwies, is a Democrat, former public defender, lesbian, married to former cop. Her district is Sante Fe, Los Alamos, and Rio Arriba counties. All three of these counties voted for Biden (as well as NM overwhelmingly so). Sante Fe and Los Alamos are the liberal capitals of NM.

Mary Carmack-Altwies has appointed special prosecutor Andrea Reeb, a Republican from a district just north of Roswell. But from my reading, Reeb just assisted in the investigation and charging decision. It's still Carmack-Altwies who is ultimately calling the shots. And it is unlikely Reeb would act as the trial attorney because she has a day job (state legislature).

---

Ha! OK, I guess my theory's out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Just got my brakes done at Midas. There are better mechanics but Midas was cheaper.. Brakes failed and someone died because I couldn't stop. Midas clearly fucked up the front disk brakes. No one is disputing that. Authorities ask if I tried the emergency brake. I swear I did... FBI says I didn't and it was working fine according to their inspection. That's where we are here..

---

We're not. A gun is inherently different than a car.

Gun was supposed to be loaded with prop bullets that were supposed to LOOK REAL. The people who declared that to the the case declared it a cold gun and handed it to an actor who trusted them. Even if not, was he knowledgeable enough to know the difference between supposed to look real and actually real? What the fuck was he supposed to do, test fire the gun with the fake bullets?

Now if he laughed and pointed at people on his own making jokes that had nothing to do with the job at hand and BANG?? Ya maybe then there would be justifiable anger against what Baldwin did in that moment..

Pretty surprised too although I suppose it could still be part of a play for bigger political/cable channel aspirations. Baldwin is red meat for the fox crowd so going through the motions w him even if they lead no may have some longer term upside for her?

Still odd there hasn’t been any revelations as to how an actual bullet made it into the chamber of the gun

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Gun was supposed to be loaded with prop bullets that were supposed to LOOK REAL. The people who declared that to the the case declared it a cold gun and handed it to an actor who trusted them. Even if not, was he knowledgeable enough to know the difference between supposed to look real and actually real? What the fuck was he supposed to do, test fire the gun with the fake bullets?

Now if he laughed and pointed at people on his own making jokes that had nothing to do with the job at hand and BANG?? Ya maybe then there would be justifiable anger against what Baldwin did in that moment..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by toast2266

My guess is that this is mostly a small town prosecutor from a conservative area that's seeing an opportunity to make a name for themselves by going after one of the right's liberal boogeymen.

---

Point of order: That’s not the case in Santa Fe County NM. Place is as blue as the sky.

Edit: nvm, altasnob got it.

The main thing I have gleaned in thinking about this discussion is that there sure are a hell of a lot of movies with a hell of a lot of guns. ( And as Chekhov said, if you show a gun in the first act someone better use it in the last.) Is Hollywood a bigger problem than the NRA? Even those of us who don't own guns, haven't fired one in many years, who want stronger gun laws, etc, etc, are fascinated by them. (Even those of us with big dicks.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Is Hollywood a bigger problem than the NRA? Even those of us who don't own guns, haven't fired one in many years, who want stronger gun laws, etc, etc, are fascinated by them. (Even those of us with big dicks.)

---

Humans just love guns. Even outside America. Look at the gun ranges in tourists places like West Yellowstone and Honolulu that are marketing to Asian tourists to come shoot guns like in the movies.

Attachment 443743

Those "Shoot a machine gun today!!!" places in Las Vegas are seriously scary.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Skied Bandini Mountain

Those "Shoot a machine gun today!!!" places in Las Vegas are seriously scary.

---

Fuck that shit. As much as I would like to someday shoot full auto AR or mac 10 or AK. I would not feel safe in that kind of a range.
Obviously there’s a range officer. But that insanity is insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

We're not. A gun is inherently different than a car.

---

Are they really?

So you're saying everyone and anyone should be more careful with a gun than they are with a car? And it's OK to be more carless with a car than it is with a gun?

Gonna disagree here.. especially when the present situation involves expert oversight and expected levels of safety that go along with that.

Even if you believe it is different.. that's why the expert professional folks were there to handle, prep
are, inspect and instruct and supervise the actor using said gun.. Inherently different? OK additional precautions present..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Are they really?

So you're saying everyone and anyone should be more careful with a gun than they are with a car? And it's OK to be more carless with a car than it is with a gun?

---

That's what I'm saying, yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SumJongGuy

Are they really?

So you're saying everyone and anyone should be more careful with a gun than they are with a car? And it's OK to be more carless with a car than it is with a gun?

Gonna disagree here.. especially when the present situation involves expert oversight and expected levels of safety that go along with that.

Even if you believe it is different.. that's why the expert professional folks were there to handle, prep
are, inspect and instruct and supervise the actor using said gun.. Inherently different? OK additional precautions present..

---

Attachment 443759



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The AD

That's what I'm saying, yes.

---

Cars are used as weapons relatively frequently, unfortunately...Berlin a few years back, i recall an pro-life rally had some nutter run over some folks at the rally, etc.

Both should be treated equally from a safety standpoint.