https://apple.news/A-dx2t-tLSQmK38PkzYTpww

Manslaughter charge to be dropped.

The foreseeability requirement is not present.

Baldwin does not have a duty to change the condition of the firearm. Industry standards do not allow it. The amour has full control.

More reporting charges dropped

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna80722

https://www.washingtonpost.com...ldwin-rust-shooting/

Typically, actors are not all that familiar with firearms; one of the reasons a specialized person is hired to take care the gun is safe. An actor’s job often involves pointing guns and pulling the triggers at multiple people.

Baldwin didn’t do a damn thing wrong. Most of you are critical only because he is anti-loon.

that and he cocked the gun, and then pulled the trigger.
2 separate actions.
not an oops.

Baldwin lives everyday knowing he killed his friend, a mother, a daughter.

There's additional punishment needed?

Id never forgive myself or get over it.

Lamar, haven’t actors pointed guns at others and pulled the trigger hundreds, if not thousands of times over the last 100 years of movies?

Scott, he shouldn’t have to live with anything on his conscience. He didn’t do anything wrong. Now, the person in charge of preparing the weapon for Baldwin is a different story.

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Lamar, haven’t actors pointed guns at others and pulled the trigger hundreds, if not thousands of times over the last 100 years of movies?

He was not filming a scene. The camera was off and he was practicing his quick draw, drew his revolver, pointed it at someone and killed her!

quote:

Originally posted by Lamar:
that and he cocked the gun, and then pulled the trigger.
2 separate actions.
not an oops.

I agree.

If an actor is going to play with real guns, he must be charged with knowledge of gun safety.

Nobody said Balwin's movie had to use real guns. There are realistic replicas out there.

The rules of gun safety are non-delegable. The buck stops with the person holding the firearm.

So much sympathy with his lost friend that he's back to making the same movie. Could you play that scene, if you were him?

quote:

Originally posted by Schrodinger:
Scott, he shouldn’t have to live with anything on his conscience. He didn’t do anything wrong. Now, the person in charge of preparing the weapon for Baldwin is a different story.

Me personally, I couldn't say that about myself.

The reporting I saw was they were setting up a shot, rehearsing a shot which is why the camera, director, and Cinematographer were in line with the revolver.

The industry rules are designed to secure the set on the face of actors who do are presumed mot to know firearms and not permitted to change the condition of the firearm.

The legal theory was always Baldwin was a producer and knew or should know this set was unsafe bc of the armorer’s actions on set.

It did not rise to the level of approximate cause that looks at foreseeability.

I would not let a novice with firearms change the condition of a firearm I had them here.

Told you from day one.

Wasn’t his fault!

So I go shoot at the range, and I can rely 100 percent on what the rangemaster tells me about whether my gun is loaded?

Methinks not.

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
So I go shoot at the range, and I can rely 100 percent on what the rangemaster tells me about whether my gun is loaded?

Methinks not.

Nobody ever shot blanks at the range.

Different setting, but if you violate the range rules and injure someone. It falls on your head.

The Industry Rules give full control to the expert being the armorer. The rules are designed to treat everyone as novices.

If Baldwin violates those rules, it is on his head. Like you violating the Range Master’s rules.

Another way ti think about it is the guys who get invited to drive race cars. They must follow the expert’s rules.

No one can expect actors to be experts in firearms. They are experts in acting. That is why armorer has the control.

I have no issue with a State enacting a filming with firearms procedure Statute that places pro se blame on the actor. That does not exists. I doubt folks would film in such a state.

The system overwhelmingly works as this is more rare than mass school murders by a wide margin.

The last time was what, The Crow? That was a blank I think.

Baldwin hired the armourer.......on another recent thread concerning fox news....oh dear God....yes fox news ....the company doing the hiring was responsible for the conduct of the employee.....

When I was in business I was always responsible for the actions of my employees....just ask osha.....

I guess Baldwin gets liberal privilege?????


.

The company that is the owner may be civilly liable, not criminally.

So Jim, it’s your position that if one of your employees rapes somebody, you are criminally responsible?

You don’t even know the difference between civil liability and criminal liability, but this doesn’t preclude you from chirping about liberal privilege. You’re a god damn martinet: You hear anything about a Democrat and it forces you to jerk to and bray “liberal privilege.” Go ahead and look that oh, so big word up.

quote:

Originally posted by Scott King:
Baldwin lives everyday knowing he killed his friend, a mother, a daughter.

There's additional punishment needed?

Id never forgive myself or get over it.

Cheap seats.

Awful situation.

Sorry, I disagree. If you handle a gun and pull the trigger, you own the result. Example, how many of you have looked at a handgun at a gunshop? What's the first thing you do before you handle it? I check the weapon to make sure it's clear.

I've never been on a movie set, but if I was going to have to fire a weapon in such a circumstance, I promise you, I'd check the loads and the weapon. He didn't. Now I don't think that's murder or manslaughter, but seems to be criminally negligent homicide. That said, why can't they use firearms on movie sets that aren't capable of actually firing a live round. that doesn't seem that difficult.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
So I go shoot at the range, and I can rely 100 percent on what the rangemaster tells me about whether my gun is loaded?

Methinks not.

Nobody ever shot blanks at the range.

But Baldwin played with a real gun. A real gun capable of shooting real bullets.

You don't need to be an armorer or have much firearms training to know you always check to see if a gun is loaded when you pick it up. EVEN IF you see the person who handed it to you check the loaded condition. No matter what the armorer did or didn't do, Baldwin should be charged with that much firearms knowledge. Otherwise he has no business touching a real gun.

A second rule I'd charge him with knowledge of: Never point a real gun at a real person, unless you intend to kill them. In this regard, Baldwin the producer was reckless. If the script calls for a shooting, let them use replicas. Using real guns is dangerous, as this incident shows. A whole industry is reckless, imho. Sets a terrible example for young people.

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Baldwin hired the armourer.......on another recent thread concerning fox news....oh dear God....yes fox news ....the company doing the hiring was responsible for the conduct of the employee.....

When I was in business I was always responsible for the actions of my employees....just ask osha.....

I guess Baldwin gets liberal privilege?????


.

Not liberal privilege. Celebrity privilege.

quote:

Originally posted by wymple:

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:
So I go shoot at the range, and I can rely 100 percent on what the rangemaster tells me about whether my gun is loaded?

Methinks not.

Nobody ever shot blanks at the range.

Exactly!

That is why they have someone in charge.

And live ammo is NEVER allowed on site!

That stupid woman in charge is responsible!

Lock her up!

quote:

Originally posted by RolandtheHeadless:

quote:

Originally posted by JTEX:
Baldwin hired the armourer.......on another recent thread concerning fox news....oh dear God....yes fox news ....the company doing the hiring was responsible for the conduct of the employee.....

When I was in business I was always responsible for the actions of my employees....just ask osha.....

I guess Baldwin gets liberal privilege?????


.

Not liberal privilege. Celebrity privilege.

Were it any common man including those few commoners here, like me! I think the same. A grandfather that leaves a loose firearm for his grandkids to find, a parent that doesn't have their firearms locked safely away, Dick Cheney shoots his friend, an accidental discharge, a " gun safety" demonstration gone wrong; how actually do criminal charges make the events any better?

We all remember that grandad that let his grandson fall out the window of the cruise ship, he's not currently in hell on earth? Gramps should be in prison to boot?

Today weve got kids being intentionally shot thru doors, kids intent shot in driveways, kids shot at Sweet Sixteen birthday parties.

A movie star, a Grandpa, and all in-between don't need the attention of today's D.A. Now a civil suit against the movie industry to implement the changes in prop guns mentioned here seems appropriate.

Why was there any live ammunition on any movie set? Have no idea?
Did the armorer pick up a gun at a pawn shop that may have had live ammo in it.
I am not very familiar with blanks but the few I have seen do not have a exposed projectile in them.

I watch you tube about all the time now.Seldom major networks.
Every evening network show is a NCIS or FBI or similar where everyone is getting shot up with assault rifles.
The liberal networks are always up in arms over assault weapons being used in these awful crimes yet it is all they exploit on TV.
What is concerning to me is that it appears that is what society want to see and draws the audience or else they programs would be cancelled.
This demonstrates that Networks place a higher priority on making money than the position they take cross the room on potential awful civil issues.
Money trumps conscience!!!\

EZ

I can see how the prosecutions legal theory of manslaughter was valid. The theory revolves around the entire production being unsafe do to the armorer’s action e firearms and ammunition. Baldwin as a producer having or should have knowledge of these safety violations making a firearms related death foreseeable. The facts apparently just are not there to support this theory.

That was the prosecutions stated legal theory. I can go along with that. Let us assume for a minute Baldwin is just an actor on set. He still has to act with reasonably. Industry Standards can define what it means to act reasonably. However, the fact we’re changed that Baldwin new the firearm was loaded w live ammo. The incident happens. The deaths would be on his head because knowing the firearm was loaded w live ammo would make his actions unreasonable.

That is not and was not the legal theory of criminal liability

Now, let us tweak the fact pattern. Baldwin has taken the position he did not pull the trigger. We have dismissed this. However, I have not seen any reporting on the condition of the single action revolver. We have all Sen “slicked up. gun fighter” single action revolvers that the sear will not hold the hammer back. In this scenario Baldwin is just an actor. He has no role in securing the firearm for the production. The armorer orbited the firearm on set, loads it, hands it to Baldwin. The director tells Baldwin to cock the hammer for purposes of framing the scene being set up. Sear fails hammer falls. Revolt goes off. Baldwin has acted responsible in this scenario.

Now, that is more than more likely not at plat. If that firearm were so damaged, Baldwin’s legal and PR team would make sure we know. The point is, it is realistically possible.

The other remote criminal liability is possibility is Baldwin’s criminal jeopardy has not ended. I do not know if the charge was dismissed w prejudice. A dismissal w prejudice bars any attempt to re charge him. I dismissal wo prejudice can be reinstated within in a time period or a new Felony charge brought subject to the SOL for the jurisdiction. This assumes a SOL for felonies in the jurisdiction. KY does not have a SOL for any felonies.

How? That is because in criminal proceedings the S. Ct. has held jeopardy does not attach until the petite jury is empaneled. I do not, personally, agree with that. Yet, that is the law.

"warmed over from 20 Jan"

posted 20 January 2023 08:34
On the safe set,
only the armorer and assistant armorer load the firearms for the scene—no exceptions.
On the safe set,
if the scene requires dummy rounds, the armorer provides and loads them in front of the actor.
(these are called “shakers” as they have BB’s in them, no powder,no live primer.
The bb’s are to make noise when shaken- this audibly identifies a dummy round.)

They then dry fire the revolver pointed straight down, cycling through the complete cylinder.
They then hand the weapon to the actor and have the actor do the same thing, twice verifying the weapon is loaded only with dummies.
As soon as the director calls “cut” all weapons are immediately returned to the armorer,
before anything else happens.

But this is how a safe set is run;
seems clear that “Rust” was not run in a safe manner.

Who is responsible for a safe set?
Producer?
Director?
Actor?
Armorer?

How about they all are-
So-
Who is the producer?
Who is the director?
Who is the co-author?
Who is the actor that fired the revolver?

That would be - Alec Baldwin.

Has Baldwin handled firearms on sets before?
Has he produced and directed before?
Has he been involved in hiring/ firing before?
Was he involved in hiring /firing,organizing safety etc?

So
by the reasonable man standard-
he, Baldwin,
should he have known better.

And, particularly, should not have stated

‘ i didn’t fire the gun, i never pulled the trigger’.

Negligent Homicide , Involuntary Homicide, Voluntary Negligent Homicde
whichever term is correct in NM

Yes, his actions , fit this charge. - at least,

quote:

posted 21 April 2023 16:14 Hide Post
Why was there any live ammunition on any movie set? Have no idea?
Did the armorer pick up a gun at a pawn shop that may have had live ammo in it.
I am not very familiar with blanks but the few I have seen do not have a exposed projectile in them.

Blanks on sets in westerns -in the past- were "five-n-one" types.
They would fire in 45LC, 44-40, 38-40, .410 , 45-70.
They were typically used in scenes that actors were separated by 15 ft or more.

For closer proximity-"up-close" blanks typically were only fired in "barrel obstructed" weapons.

Dummy rounds (as noted above" were called "shakers", thgese were for closups showing a "loaded" gun.

Your safe set protocol is complete and utter bullshit. Where did you come with this protocol?

Haha, you shoot a couple trial rounds and you’re guaranteed the next is not a real bullet?

The author of the script may be liable?

Where do you come up with this goofy shit?

he pulled the trigger, killed someone, wounded another, and walks free?

Nope - I don't agree

quote:

Where do you come up with this goofy shit?

Having leased firearms to productions and having supplied armorers.

Smartass

quote:

he pulled the trigger, killed someone, wounded another, and walks free?

Nope - I don't agree

Given that he is continuing production of Rust, he’s obviously not too shaken by what happened.

From a moral point of view I feel Baldwin is responsible for killing the lady.

As the guy pointing the gun at her unnecessarily, and pulling the trigger.

As a guy who was in charge of ensuring safe practices were set up and followed. As the guy in charge of hiring people who would follow the protocols.

He’s been on enough sets and been involved in enough productions to know what is supposed to happen.

If the protocol is the armorer hands you the gun for a take (many have said that here) then why would a guy who has been in as many high end films not know the difference between his hired associate director man and his hired armorer woman? There have been so many red flags posted about this that any reasonable person (let alone someone with his level of experience) can see issues here.

An industry standard is supposed to be something even higher than what the common man on the street is required to possess.

I think Baldwin is responsible for Hutchin’s death.

What exact legal definition it meets, I’m not sure… but that woman MN cop just got out of prison after shooting someone while trying to follow “industry standards” and screwing up. No doubt she should have known better.

Looking at her before and after photos, sure as hell she has remorse.

I’d be happy with Baldwin getting a felony conviction, never being allowed possession of a gun again, and no jail time, along with a punitive civil judgement.

Looks like I will be disappointed here. He looks like he will walk and continue to be a rich actor who tells others what to do and is unable to do it himself.

I saw in the news that the gun was destroyed in the testing. Is that true and if so how does that happen?

sad if true-

i believe it was one of Thell's that he had given to Hannah

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
he pulled the trigger, killed someone, wounded another, and walks free?

Nope - I don't agree

Not every action is a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
he pulled the trigger, killed someone, wounded another, and walks free?

Nope - I don't agree

Not every action is a crime.

that is for a jury to sort out

Jeff, long before a jury decided, a prosecutor, then a grand jury.

And Case Law.

Proximate Cause which deals with foreseeability is the issue. That is a legal determination for the Judge.

Judges decide questions of law. Juries decide and applies facts to the law provided by the Court

quote:

Juries decide and applies facts to the law provided by the Court

Then there is Jury nullification.